Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HONG KONG COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I beg to present a petition from the British inhabitants of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, numbering 1,500, praying for the abolition, so far as non-Chinese unofficial members of the Council are concerned, of the principle of Government nominees, and the substitution of popular election thereon and the adoption, so far as non-Chinese members of the Council are concerned, of a larger electoral body than exists at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA

TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 12-mile limit for territorial waters was claimed by the Russian Government before the War; whether attempts were made then to interfere with British vessels fishing in those waters; whether His Majesty's Government then made any protest; if so, with what result; whether any protest is being made now against the same claim and interference; whether some nine or 12 months ago the Russian Government proposed a conference with His Majesty's Government on this subject of territorial waters and other matters; and what was the response of His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Russian Government in December, 1909, passed a law claiming to regulate the movements of all vessels within 12 nautical miles of the shores of
the Russian Empire; His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd was immediately instructed to reserve the rights of British subjects. In July, 1910, the British trawler "Onward Ho" was arrested by Russian authorities while outside the 3-mile limit. In consequence of the representations of His Majesty's representative, the ship was shortly afterwards, released. In June last the Russian Trade Delegation in this country communicated to His Majesty's Government a recent Soviet decree for the protection of fisheries, claiming to exclude foreign vessels from Russian waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shore. His Majesty's Government immediately protested, but have expressed their willingness, whilst maintaining their objection to the 12-mile limit, to consider any draft of a convention for the protection of sea fisheries which the Soviet Government might put forward. No such draft has so far been submitted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the negotiations continuing or commenced about this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the limit is not put forward as a territorial limit, but because of the breeding grounds, and can this matter be cleared up?

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Have the Government any naval vessels near this spot which could put a check on these piratical operations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the Government have no naval vessels in those waters. I am not quite sure what matter my hon. and gallant Friend refers to as the subject of negotiations. As he knows these fisheries have been the subject of very strong representations which continue to be made to the Soviet Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When this took place in June last year were the Boards of Agriculture of England and Scotland informed so that they could warn our fishermen of the danger?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no doubt that the Board of Fisheries in Scotland were aware of what was taking place.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why did the Government in the case of the Czarist Government take strong steps to secure
the release of our fishermen, while in the case of the Soviet Government they only made representations?

Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be a better policy to agree with the other Powers for a 12-mile limit?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is an exceedingly debatable question.

Mr. LYLE: Does the hon. Member think it is any use holding any conference whatever with the Soviet Government, because they never keep any of their promises?

TRADE WITH GERMANY.

Colonel GRETTON: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the total exports from Russia into Germany and from Germany into Russia in the year 1913?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): There is a marked discrepancy between the Russian and German figures of trade between the two countries in 1913. According to the German figures, exports to Russia amounted to about £43,300,000, and imports from Russia £70,000,000. According to the Russian figures, imports from Germany amounted to about £68,800,000, and exports to Germany £47,900,000. In neither case are the figures of trade between Finland and Germany included.

BULGARIA.

Mr. L. MALONE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations to the effect that Greece is not carrying out the spirit of Article 48, Section 3, Part III, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, of 27th November, 1919, in which the Allied and Associated Powers undertook to ensure the economic outlets of Bulgaria to the Ægean Sea; whether difficulties have been put in the way of Bulgaria which restricts her trade through such ports as Dedeagatch; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in this matter in order to press Greece to carry out the provisions of the Treaty?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Article quoted from the Treaty of Neuilly im-
poses not on Greece, but on the principal Allied Powers to whom the Treaty transferred Western Thrace, the obligation to provide Bulgaria with access to the sea. The principal Allied Powers, to meet this obligation, inserted special clauses in the Treaty, signed with Greece on 10th August, 1920, by which Western Thrace was transferred to Greece, but this Treaty is not yet ratified. Until it is ratified, and Western Thrace ceded to Greece, she cannot be pressed, nor will she be in a position to give effect to its provisions.

Mr. MALONE: Will the hon. Gentle man take steps to prevent the Greeks from molesting the Bulgarians?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I was not aware that they were molesting them.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has this country any individual obligation to see that the Greeks carry out the Treaty?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CADETS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval cadets are now under training at the naval colleges at Dartmouth and Keyham and in the training cruisers; whether it is considered essential that this number should be trained for His Majesty's Navy; how many cadets were under training in March, 1914; and how many cadets is it proposed to enter during the present year and in 1923, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): 651 naval cadets are now under training at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and in the training ships, as compared with a total of 1,034 under training in March, 1914. No cadets are now sent to Keyham. The present number of cadets under training, when account is taken of the reductions to be made in the present two senior terms at Dartmouth on passing out, is considered essential to meet requirements. The number of entries proposed to be made during 1922 is 164; the number for 1923 will not be fixed until later when requirements can be more clearly foreseen, but a slight increase will probably be found to be necessary.

FISHERY PROTECTION VESSELS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many gunboats or other war vessels are employed in fishery protection duties; where they are employed; whether the waters of Iceland and the North Coast of Russia are ever visited by these vessels; and, if so, what was the date of the last of these visits, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: Eleven sloops and trawlers are employed on fishery protection duties, the details of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. H.M.S. "Harebell" visited Icelandic waters from the 4th to the 12th August, 1921. No fishery protection vessel has visited Russian waters since the War. A vessel is in readiness to proceed to these waters, but orders have not yet been issued for her sailing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that recently the fishermen have been treated with much harshness, and does this not show the advisability of sending these vessels much more frequently?

Mr. AMERY: I will take that into consideration.

Viscount CURZON: Do these vessels possess the extreme speed necessary to enable them to catch the craft with which they have to deal?

Mr. AMERY: I must ask for notice of that question.

The details referred to are as follow:

H.M.S. "Harebell" (sloop), Senior Officer.
H.M.S. "Godetia" (sloop), Local Fishery Naval Officer, North Sea, Lowestoft.
H.M.S. "Exe" (trawler), Moray Firth, under Scottish Fishery Board.
H.M.S. "Garry" (trawler), Grimsby.
H.M.S. "Liffey" (trawler), Grimsby.
H.M.S. "Kennet" (trawler), Lowestoft.
H.M.S. "Dee" (trawler), Lowestoft.
H.M.S. "Colne" (trawler), Falmouth.
H.M.S. "Ettrick" (trawler), Falmouth.
434
H.M.S. "Doon" (trawler), West Coast of Ireland.
H.M.S. "Cherwell" (trawler), Irish Channel.

PETTY OFFICERS (CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 5.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any alteration has been made in the home dockyard Regulations concerning the employment of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines in a clerical capacity in certain dockyard offices; and whether it is anticipated that this Regulation will be affected by the recommendations of the Treasury Committee, presided over by Lord Lytton?

Mr. AMERY: No alteration has been made in the Regulations concerning the employment, in a clerical capacity, in certain dockyard offices of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines. The question will, however, come under review in connection with the general reorganisation of Admiralty civil establishments.

NAVAL DEPOTS (LICENSED BARS).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the giant of a fully licensed bar to chief and petty officers' messes in shore establishments, requested in Item 42 of the general requests of the 1919 welfare committee; and whether he will state if any objections exist to this request being acceded to, observing that non-commissioned officers of the Army and Royal Air Force are in possession of this privilege?

Mr. AMERY: As the conditions at the naval depots differ widely from those obtaining in Army barracks, the Admiralty are of opinion that it is not desirable to sanction the establishment of fully licensed bars. It has, however, been decided to establish bars for the sale of-malt liquors only in chief petty officers' and petty officers' messes at the depots, and provision for these bars is being made as part of the scheme of improvements which is being proceeded with as rapidly as financial considerations admit.

S.S. "O. B. JENNINGS" (SALVAGE AWARD).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is expected that the award made on the 17th May, 1920, for salvage of the s.s. "O. B. Jennings," Hull, between the 24th March and the 26th April, 1918, will be ready for payment?

Mr. AMERY: This award is waiting the result of arbitration proceedings in the United States, and it is not yet known when they will be completed.

OFFICERS' REDUCTION (COMPENSATION).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any scheme of compensation for those officers who are to be put out of the Service, voluntarily or compulsorily, has been evolved; and when such scheme will be made public or communicated to the officers?

Mr. AMERY: The whole matter is under consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest a date when he will be prepared to answer my question if I put it down again?

Mr. AMERY: It depends on other Departments, but I intend to make a statement as soon as possible.

1914–15 STAR.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the 1914–15 star has been refused to men who served during the War in His Majesty's repair ships; and, in view of the fact that ships like H.M.S. "Cyclops" were armed and able to fulfil all the requirements of a sea-going ship, he can see his way to reconsider the matter and grant to these men the star, and so remove what is regarded by them as a grievance?

Mr. AMERY: The naval award of the 1914–15 star for service in His Majesty's ships is limited to service in those ships which actually went to sea, and as H.M.S. "Cyclops" had no sea service during the qualifying period, it has been definitely decided that members of her crew are ineligible for the star.

RAILWAY FACILITIES.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement that the railway companies have under consideration the question of the reintroduction of cheap facilities for officers and ratings of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines; and can he now say what reply the Admiralty have received to their representations to the railway companies in this matter?

Mr. AMERY: In December last the railway companies were requested by the Army Council on behalf of the three Departments concerned to consider favourably the question of the reintroduction of cheap travelling facilities for officers and men of the Navy, Army, and Air Force. A reply has now been received from the railway clearing house to the effect that after careful consideration of the whole matter the railway companies regret that they cannot see their way to accede to this request.

BIRCHINGS AND CANINGS.

Mr. L. MALONE: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of birchings inflicted during 1921 in the Royal Navy, the number of canings, and the maximum number of strokes now allowed for a birching sentence; if it is carried out in the presence of other persons; and whether naval cadets are subject to the same punishment?

Mr. AMERY: The conditions and restrictions under which birching is now permitted in the Royal Navy were given in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 15th June last. The punishment was inflicted on three offenders only in 1921, by the ship's police of a naval establishment, in the presence of the executive officer and a medical officer only. The maximum number of strokes is 24. As regards caning, this punishment may be ordered summarily by the Captain, up to a maximum of 12 strokes, for certain serious offences by boy ratings. Caning is not carried out publicly. It is regretted it is not possible to say how often it was carried out in 1921. Caning (but not birching) is also an authorised punishment for naval cadets.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

ROSYTH DISTRICT.

Mr. LAMBERT: 13.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what number of houses has been erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice; whether any land has been feued during the past few months for building purposes; whether such land is to be utilised; and what was the cost and area of land recently acquired?

Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of houses erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice is 212, inclusive of 152 houses completed under contracts then running. Since 1920, negotiations have been in progress for the acquisition of 100 additional acres of land for houses. The transaction was virtually completed last year although the exact terms of feu have not been finally adjusted. Consequent upon the reduction of staff at Rosyth, the question of building further houses is being reconsidered, and meantime it is not possible to say to what use the land will be put.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this land amounting to 100 acres has been definitely leased or feued by the Government?

Mr. PRATT: Yee, sir.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Health the total cost of houses finished to date erected by local authorities under the Government's housing scheme and eligible for State assistance in excess of the local penny rate; the total number of houses so erected; and the average cost of the same?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The actual total cost of the 91,864 houses which had been finished on 1st March cannot yet be stated as most of these houses are included in contracts which have not yet been completed. As I stated in the Debate last week, the average all-in cost is estimated at £1,100.

Mr. THOMSON: How can the right hon. Gentleman give the figure if he has not got the actual cost of the 91,000?
How can he estimate the cost of 168,000, of which 50,000 are not yet built?

Sir A. MOND: I gave the average all-in cost of the 91,000, making the best estimate we could that worked out at £1,100.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses, the builders of which have received grants from the State, built since the 1st January, 1919, or now under construction?

Sir A. MOND: The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which authorised the grants to persons constructing houses in accordance with schemes made by the Minister, became law on the 23rd December, 1919. Houses commenced before that date are not eligible for the grant. Up to the present time grants have been paid in respect of 28,816 completed houses. According to the certificates received from local authorities, the number of houses commenced but not yet completed is 13,000.

Major STEEL: 32.
asked the Minister of Health why it is that the housing subsidy for new houses has been discontinued as regards England and Wales, but has been retained in Scotland, and will be granted for new houses built in that country until the year 1924; and will he consider the continuance of the subsidy in the case of rural areas where it can be proved that there were exceptional difficulties in the preparation and advancement of housing schemes?

Sir A. MOND: I have on numerous occasions given the quite definite assurance that where work is undertaken by local authorities in England and Wales with the approval of my Department, and for reasons outside the control of the authority, the work cannot be completed within the period fixed by the original Regulations, the time for completion will be extended as may be necessary.

LOCAL LOANS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the separate total amounts of money raised for housing purposes by local authorities by means of housing bonds, local loans stock, mortgage deeds, Public Works Loan Commissioners, and from other sources, to-
gether with the average rate of interest paid in each class of borrowing and the average periods for which the money has been borrowed without the option of a break, in each of the above cases?

STATEMENT showing the approximate Capital Moneys borrowed for Housing purposes, the average Rate of Interest payable, and the Period for which the Money has been borrowed.


Form of borrowing.
Approximate not cash proceeds.
Average effective rate of interest allowing for discount and expenses.
Periods for which money has been borrowed without option of repayment.



£
£
s.
d.



Local Housing Bonds
20,000,000
6
5
0
Chiefly 5 years.


Issue of Stock
36,000,000
6
13
6
Chiefly 20 years.


Mortgage Loans from Public Works Loans Commissioners.
74,000,000
6
6
6
Full authorised period of the loan (from 20 to 80 years according to the nature of the work).


Other Mortgage Loans
22,000,000
6
5
0
It is estimated that £12,000,000 of the amount is for periods less than 10 years, the remainder for periods of 10 to 60 years.




(Approx.)



Total
£152,000,000

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS (INSURANCE).

Mr. LYLE: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any suggestions that domestic servants should be placed under the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether, since there is no unemployment among domestic servants and the need for them is almost as great as ever, he will say what was the answer made to these representations?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Representations in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend have been made to me. On consideration I am not prepared to amend the existing law as suggested.

FOUNDRY LABOURERS.

Mr. MILLS: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether labourers in foundries who have lost their employment by reason of the engineering lock-out are not to receive unemployment benefit; if so, whether he is aware that, during the moulders' dispute, these labourers were refused benefit, but engineers who lost their employment in consequence of the moulders' dispute were paid benefit; and whether he will explain the reason why

Sir A. MOND: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars which the hon. Member desires.

The following is the statement issued:

engineers should have received the benefit in the one case and the labourers in foundries refused the benefit in the ether?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The rules in this respect are laid down by Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Broadly speaking, the following are disqualified for benefit:

All men actually locked out, and
All those working in the same Establishment (whether skilled or unskilled) who become unemployed on account of the lock-out.
In the case of a foundry forming part of an engineering works, but carried on in a separate department from the engineering shop, the men employed in the foundry would not ordinarily be disqualified for benefit on account of a lock-out confined to the engineering shop. If any doubt arises as to the application of Section 8 (1) in any case, an appeal may be lodged to the Court of Referees, and, if necessary, to the Umpire, whose decision is final and conclusive.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that very many people who are being locked out are being given their unemployment cards, which is
virtually an act of dismissal? How will he view that with regard to claims for unemployment benefit?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That fact, of which I have no knowledge, would not affect the claim at all. It all depends on Section 8, Sub-section (1). The question can be raised, of course.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BLAINA.

Mr. G. BARKER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the unemployed of Nantyglo and Blaina at the way they are dealt with at the Employment Exchange; that on Wednesdays and Fridays they have to stand in queues from one to two hours in the street, sometimes in pouring rain, waiting for their unemployment pay; that there is only one Exchange for Nantyglo and Blaina to deal with 3,000 men; and that this means that aged and destitute men have to make a journey of three miles to and from the Exchange twice every week; and whether, with a view to remedying these grievances, he will take steps to have the unemployed living at Nantyglo paid in that area so as to avoid the danger to health arising out of the present arrangements?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that there has been some congestion at the Blaina sub-office in the past, but this has now been remedied. My information is that none of these men live further than two miles away from the nearest office, and attendance is required only twice a week. In these circumstances I should not be justified in incurring the expense of another office.

Mr. BARKER: When was the congestion removed? I have very recent information as to its existence.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say how recently the change has been made, but it has been remedied.

WOMEN, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of women on the unemployment register for London at the present time, and what are the principal trades in which such women are registered; is he aware that there is great difficulty in obtaining female labour, either for indoor domestic service or for daily work in London; and can
he suggest to Employment Exchanges the desirability of pointing out to women unemployed the demands for such domestic labour?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of women registered as unemployed in the Metropolitan area at 13th March was 51,869, belonging principally to the hotel, restaurant, and boarding-house service, the clothing trades, and manufacture of food and drink. I am aware of the shortage of women domestic servants. It is a standing instruction to Exchange officers to direct the attention of unemployed women to the opportunities of work in domestic service, and large numbers have been placed in employment in this way. As a matter of fact, the number, of women placed in employment by the Exchanges during the last 12 months was 218,000, of whom 124,000 were placed in domestic service—residential and daily.

Sir J. D. REES: Are women who are offered employment as domestic servants and refuse it allowed to draw the unemployment benefit?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a matter for the local Committee whether they are competent to receive it, and in case of doubt it goes to the Board of Referees.

Mr. MILLS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many complaints from women such as accountants, typists and dressmakers, who object to domestic service as such, but are quite willing to accept work as ward maids and similar work, which is all lumped together under the title of domestic work, and therefore leads to much misapprehension?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that I have. The point is a perfectly simple one. If a woman with children dependent on her asks for benefit her attention is drawn to vacancies which are posted in the office—I wish we had more of them—and if she refuses to take such a vacancy, then a question may arise and, if necessary, it is referred to the Board of Referees.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. RENDALL: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to grant a return showing the amounts spent by boards of guardians in relieving unemployed persons; and whether he is aware
that boards of guardians are anxious to furnish him with the necessary information for such a return?

Sir A. MOND: I will give this matter careful consideration; perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question at a later date.

Mr. RENDALL: A fortnight hence.

BUILDING TRADE (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. MALONE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour, seeing that there is a dispute in progress in the building industry, that wages in this industry are already regulated under a sliding scale which varies with the cost of living, that the employers are demanding a super-cut, that in the matter of hours the employers propose that there shall be an extension to from 49 to 54 in summer, whether he will take steps to prevent this dispute from developing into a lock-out of the building employés?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am glad to say that the National Wages and Conditions Council for the Building Industry on the 17th March reached an agreement with regard to the alteration of wages and the question of working hours for the building industry.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACTS.

Mr. LYLE: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether any statistics exist showing the percentage of persons who, making payments under the Health Insurance Acts and registering with a panel doctor, yet never make any recourse to his services even in case of illness, but choose and pay another practitioner?

Sir A. MOND: No statistics on this point are available, but there is nothing to indicate that the percentage of such persons is considerable.

Mr. LYLE: In view of the unsatisfactory working of the Act and of the fact that patients do not desire to fill in the cards, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in an amending Bill?

Sir A. MOND: I do not know what kind of amending Bill the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

MILK.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the pressing urgency of making better provision for securing a pure supply of milk for human consumption; and how soon will he be in a position to introduce legislation dealing with this question?

Sir A. MOND: I fully appreciate the importance of securing purer milk, but it is in my judgment equally important to avoid action tending to decrease the production of milk and add to the price to the consumer. The matter continues to occupy my attention, but I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Mr. HURD: Can we at least be assured that the Act of 1915, which is on the Statute Book, but it not yet in operation, will not be brought into force until certain amendments have been made in it?

Sir A. MOND: I am considering now how to alter the Act of 1915.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: When bringing in legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the producer—the farmer—gets a fair return?

Sir A. MOND: I should like him to do that.

Mr. FORD: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if it has been represented to him that the Regulation governing the production and sale of grade A and grade A (certified) milk, which requires receptacles to be labelled with the name of the farm of origin or the name of the farmer, act in restraint of sales of these high-grade milks, because buyers are thereby led to connect the purity of the milk with particular farms instead of with the Government Regulations under which these milks are produced, so that if for any reason the output of milk from any particular farm diminishes buyers refuse similar milk from some other farm when offered to them in lieu; and will he consider the advisability of amending the Regulations, so that the number of the Government licence shall be substituted
for the name of the farm or farmer, with a view to assuring the public in an unmistakable manner that their confidence may be placed impartially on any milk bearing the Government guarantee, and that they are not dependent on any particular farm?

Sir A. MOND: Representations have been made to me on the point, and I will consider it in connection with amending milk legislation.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the prices given to the producer of milk is to be 3d. to 4d. per gallon for the months of May and June; and whether he can give approximate information as to what the retail prices are likely to be to the consumer?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset.

ELECTORAL REFORM.

Sir J. D. REES: 29.
asked the Minister of Health what is the substance of the Report on electoral reform he has prepared for submission to the Government?

Sir A. MOND: I am much surprised that the hon. Baronet, who has been a distinguished member of the Indian Government, should press for the publication of a confidential Cabinet document.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman engage there shall be no tinkering with Proportional Representation?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

LUNACY ACT (CERTIFICATION).

Mr. MILLS: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act constitutes (in default of action by the commissioners or the medical superintendent) the sole safeguard against detention at the hands of an unjust petitioner, he will take steps to see that the intention of the above Section is not annulled by the substitution (in the case of a lady con-
fined for 13 years in Camberwell Asylum) of the names of two doctors nominated by the husband for the names of the two independent medical practitioners submitted in the application for her examination under the statute, with a view to her discharge?

Sir A. MOND: On the general question I would refer to my answers of the 6th March and 13th February. In the particular case mentioned the Board of Control had two applications under Section 49 before them at the same time—one from persons who were not relatives and the other from the husband who asked to be allowed to send two specialists in mental diseases. There is no reason to think that the husband is not sincerely interested in the wife's welfare and the Board accordingly consented to his application.

RATES, WILLESDEN (NONPAYMENT).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 35.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of a man summoned at Willesden for non-payment of rates who pleaded inability, but who, it transpired, was buying his house through a building society and paying the instalments with Poor Law relief obtained from the guardians; and whether any steps will be taken to recover the ratepayers' money invested for his personal advantage?

Sir A. MOND: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a Report which I have obtained in regard to this case. It will be seen from the Report that the statements which have been published about this case are quite inaccurate, and that accordingly the latter part of the question does not arise.

DEATHS FROM PRIVATION (RETURNS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the request to the coroners from the Local Government Board always contained a caution that the Return should include only cases where the jury find that death was brought about by starva-
tion or privation due to destitution, or in which a death, primarily due to disease, was accelerated by lack of food, shelter, or medical attention arising from poverty, and that the Returns show that, in all the cases except about 5 per cent. of the whole, this principle was complied with; will he say how the inspectors can always obtain information that a death on which a jury has found such a verdict has taken place unless it is reported to them by the coroner; whether there are now a very large number of deaths from privation which do not appear on the lists; and whether he will reconsider the subject from a health point of view and maintain the lists, with the improvement that the coroners shall be asked to send in a Report after each inquest has been held, and that it be made clear that cases where a coroner sits without a jury shall be included?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I cannot say in what percentage of of cases the instruction mentioned was complied with. The inspectors obtain their information from the Poor Law officers and the local Press, and I have no reason to suppose that any cases of deaths from privation upon which inquests are held escape the inspectors' notice. I will certainly consider whether the present system can be improved.

MARRIED WOMEN (PRESUMPTION OF COERCION).

Mr. RAPER: 38.
asked the Attorney-General whether it is now proposed to take steps to repeal the law by which wives charged jointly with their husbands with certain criminal offences are presumed to have acted under the coercion of their husbands, and by which juries are compelled to find a verdict of not guilty?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): The question whether any, and if so what, alteration in the law is desirable deserves and will receive careful consideration. The Lord Chancellor proposes, after consultation with me, to set up a small but highly expert Committee to make a Report to him on the subject as a whole. The decision as
to whether any alteration should be made will not be taken until such a Report has been received.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS (FEES).

Mr. MYERS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether any representation has been made to him in respect of the recommendation of the Geddes Committee relating to a suggested charge being made for registering the Returns of friendly societies; and what action he proposes to take in connection with the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the questions put by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Alfred Davies) on the 9th instant.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS, UGANDA.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the Contagious Diseases Acts now operating in Uganda, which compel chiefs, none of whom has had a medical examination, to report to the authorities anyone of whom he has reasonable suspicion that he or she has venereal disease; is he aware that numbers of men and women are obliged by British Government officials, and native chiefs acting under their orders, to come up at intervals for a particular form of medical inspection, and that the Colonial Office induces white women, both doctors and nurses, to leave England, where Contagious Diseases Acts are not law, to carry out measures of a similar nature in a British Protectorate, and this without pointing out to them the element of compulsion in the work they are expected to do; and will he take steps to put an end to these objectionable practices?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): There is no analogy between the Contagious Diseases Acts formerly in force in this country, which were directed to the compulsory examination of prostitutes, and the
measures which have been in force in Uganda since 1913 for preserving a population ravaged by venereal disease. The questions whether the procedure in Uganda can be improved in detail, and whether special reference to prostitutes can be deleted from the legislation without relieving that class from the liability to examination which is considered essential in the case of the general population, will be referred to the Governor. But I am satisfied, as was Lord Harcourt in 1913, of the necessity of drastic action in dealing with the matter. The main legislation on the subject is a native law of the Kingdom of Buganda, passed by and at the instance of the native Government, and the administration of the law is a matter for the native chiefs and not for British officials, though the Government medical officers give their services in examining the suspected cases sent to them by the chiefs. Corresponding legislation exists to cover the case of those not subject to the native law. There has been no complaint from the medical staff as to the execution of these measures except from a woman doctor who was selected for employment in Uganda because of her special knowledge of venereal diseases. Her protest appears to be attributable in part to her conclusion, as a result of her five months' experience, that not more than 5 per cent. of the persons she examined were infected, a view which is not shared by medical men, official and missionary, of many years' standing. It is a fact that her attention had not been drawn before her selection to the special measures regarding venereal disease. They were communicated to her very shortly after her arrival, and it appears that she took part in many examinations before making any complaint. Care is now taken to bring these measures to the notice of any persons engaged primarily for the duty of carrying them into effect.

Mr. RENDALL: Is that woman doctor now in the employ of the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will ask.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

PRISONERS' BELEASE, GREAT BRITAIN.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the order issued by him for the
release of the prisoners convicted of shooting, arson, and other offences committed in Great Britain, and who were sentenced and confined in Great Britain, on the plea that these offences were committed from Irish political motives, were issued on his own individual initiative?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question addressed to me on the 13th February last by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), in which I made it clear that the advice tendered to His Majesty on the occasion referred to was tendered as the result of a Cabinet decision.

Sir C. YATE: What have offences committed in England to do with rebellion in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We went into all that, and I pointed out that the Irish Government accept responsibility for the damage done in England, which will be included in the bill which is due from them.

REPRISALS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many Sinn Feiners in the South of Ireland, their houses having been destroyed as reprisals, received charitable contributions from the White Cross or similar funds; that these contributions were augmented by compulsory levies from the neighbouring loyalist population; that the houses were in many instances rebuilt on a better scale than before their destruction; and that, in spite of these facts, full claims are being put in for the complete rebuilding of these houses; and is he prepared to disallow such claims?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information regarding the matters mentioned in the first four parts of the question. In reply to the last part, as I informed the House in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on February 24th, a Commission will shortly be set up with power to hear all outstanding claims with respect to damage to property arising between 21st January, 1919, and 11th July last, and to revise all existing decrees with respect to such damage. The matters referred to by the hon. and
gallant Member are obviously germane to the Commission's inquiry, and will, I have no doubt, be taken into consideration by them.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with facts, will he take the necessary steps?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commission will be appointed in a few days, and it is the business of the Commission to go into this matter, which is entirely a relevant matter for them.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: How is the Commission to obtain unintimidated evidence?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot think of any novel departure.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: How will the Commission protect witnesses who give evidence?

DERBY PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Crown, has no Constitutional right to release before trial prisoners who are in custody; whether, in releasing the Derry prisoners, the Lord Lieutenant acted on the advice of British Ministers; and whether, before giving such advice, the British Ministers consulted the Law Officers of the Crown in England?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland gave directions that these prisoners were not to be prosecuted. That statement was correct. I regret, however, to find that, in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) I inadvertently gave the House an erroneous impression in regard to the grounds of the Attorney-General's action in the matter. I said that he had taken his decision on a calculation of the evidence and on general grounds. I understand that, in fact, the course taken by the Northern Attorney-General was the result of a decision for which the Northern Government, as a whole, was responsible, and was prompted by a desire to ease a difficult situation. It has frequently been
the practice in Ireland, in cases where the Attorney-General has decided not to proceed further with the case against the prisoner awaiting trial, for the Lord Lieutenant to release the prisoner, and it was in accordance with this precedent that the Lord Lieutenant acted on the present occasion. In the communication from Sir James Craig, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, he expressly left the responsibility for further action in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and, in placing the facts before the Lord Lieutenant, after receipt of that communication, I advised him that it was within his power and would be in accordance with practice to act as he did.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any recent instance of the Royal Prerogative being exercised in the case of men who are awaiting trial?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that there is.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not obvious that these men were released owing to presure brought to bear by His Majesty's Government upon the Government of Northern Ireland, and that they were released against the judgment of that Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In all this difficult business it is quite true that the action of His Majesty's Government, as far as it can be effective, is directed towards endeavouring to calm and quiet down passions which are, unhappily, aroused between these two sections of Irishmen. If everyone acted in the same spirit, things would be very much brighter than they are now.

CONSTABULARY BARRACKS, MARYBOROUGH (THEFTS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officials of the Provisional Government who looted the boxes and kit-bags containing the personal property of a convoy of the Royal Irish Constabulary en route from Cork to Gormanston camp, while halted for the night of 25th February at barracks at Maryborough, recently taken over by the forces of the Provisional Government have been arrested and punished; whether the per-
sonal property stolen from the men has been recovered and returned to them; and, if not, whether compensation has been paid by the Provisional Government to policemen, many of whom have lost the whole of their personal belongings while resting for the night in barracks under the control and in the occupation of the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Provisional Government that their inquiry into this matter is still proceeding, but that they are satisfied as a result of the investigations already made that these thefts were committed by some persons not members of the garrison, and that no members of the garrison were implicated. A thorough search has been made for the missing property, and some of it has already been recovered and restored to the police. It is hoped that the remainder will shortly be recovered and restored, and that the thieves will be traced and brought to justice.

BORDER RAIDS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the. Colonies whether he is in a position to give any further information to the House as to the situation on the border between Northern and Southern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I received a telegram yesterday from the Northern Government. It reached me after question time, and as I read a summary of the statement which I had received before that time from the Government of Southern Ireland I think that I ought to summarise this statement also. From the statement received from Sir James Craig I gather that a Crossley tender with armed I.R.A. men which had come from Donegal was found inside the Derry border on the 36th instant. About the same time 20 rifles and 3,000 rounds of ammunition were captured on members of the I.R.A. in the same locality. Pomeroy Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in the County Tyrone were raided on the 19th instant by about 20 men who commandeered a motor-car in the district in the name of the I.R.A. Maghera barracks in the County Derry were raided on the 19th inst by about 30 men while wires, bridges, and roads were cut by members of the I.R.A. The view of the Northern Government is that these raids
were organised from Southern Ireland, the local members of the I.R.A. may have taken part in them. Sir James Craig adds that four members of the B special constabulary have been murdered and their homes have been burned within the last few days. Firing is opened constantly on special constables and civilians from the Southern side of the border, but in no case has that firing been replied to. The Government have ordered the destruction of bridges in certain cases to prevent incursions from Southern Ireland into Northern Ireland. The Senior Officer of the Northern B order Commission reports that the situation around Caledon is tense and he fears trouble unless the Provisional Government appoint someone with sufficient authority to restrain insubordinate elements from the Southern Irish border.
I transmitted that part of the telegram which I got to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, and I received a communication from them, which I will also summarise to the House. The Provisional Government say, with reference to the Crossley tender, that it was seized about 100 yards inside the County Derry border. They are informed that the rifles and ammunition which were discovered near Limavady barracks were about 12 or 15 miles away, and that there was no connection between the Crossley tender which strayed across the border—the boundary is a very tortuous boundary—and the capture of these rifles 15 miles away. They further say that there is no connection between these two episodes and the raids in Maghera and Pomeroy. These places are respectively about 25 and 12 miles from the County Derry boundary. These raids were entirely planned and carried out by people resident in Tyrone and Derry with the desire—so it is alleged—to get some protection for themselves against the terror from which they allege they are suffering.
If I give one side I must give the other. I am summarising, but not bringing in needlessly provocative statements on the one side or the other. It is said by the South that it is incorrect to state that fire is opened constantly from the South side of the border, and that the very reverse is the fact. There is a tense situation in Caledon due to firing into Monaghan. The Catholic families in the Caledon district have received threaten-
ing notices, and have had to fly to Monaghan for protection. Directly they have gone their houses were burned. I am giving the two sides, and take no responsibility for the statements one way or the other, but I do take responsibility for nakedly disclosing the facts of a detestable situation. The Provisional Government add that some of their people have been wounded.
They also say that the blowing up of the bridges is indefensible and unnecessary, and some of these are County Monaghan property, and they hold those responsible accountable for the loss. They finish by offering that the British Liaison Commissioner should examine the whole position and report. I have received two other telegrams, one from the North and one from the South, which in similar strain make violent accusations and counter-accusations. No doubt the whole situation on the boundary is very lamentable and disquieting. I can only say that I trust that everyone who has any influence will use it in the direction of quietening the situation. It appears to me that the whole question of the measures to be taken to control the border must be reviewed at a very early date by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. McNEILL: There are two questions I wish to ask. I did not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman said that the Provisional Government give any reason for their statement that the raids at Maghera and Pomeroy were carried out by men inside the Northern boundary. I would be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information confirming that statement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I said yesterday that General Macready was of opinion that these raids had not originated from across the border. I suppose, no doubt, he meant that parties had not got into motor cars and gone across to carry out the raids. As to whether individuals have percolated through at earlier stages and had joined with local elements to cause the raids, I cannot say, but I do not believe that was the case, and my information is entirely contrary to the view that definite military raids have been perpetrated from the Southern side of the border into the Northern part within the last few days. May I say that
there is nothing more important in the whole situation than that a meeting should take place between the heads of the Northern and Southern Governments. Such a meeting is definitely asked for by the leaders of the Southern Government, and considering the way things are going from bad to worse on this frontier a very great responsibility is assumed by everyone who puts obstacles in the way of such a meeting.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Having regard to the fact that this state of affairs, which the right hon. Gentleman describes, is mainly owing to the boundary question which the Government have raised, will the Government take any steps to expedite a decision on that question, because until it is finished, there can be no end to this state of affairs?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A very good position was reached a few months ago, when an agreement was signed between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins. Unhappily, events occurred which led to a partial breakdown of that agreement, but the interest of all concerned in this matter is to review that discussion with the intention of bringing to an end a state of affairs which is disgraceful in the highest degree to Ireland and to all connected with it.

Mr. GWYNNE: In view of the delicacy of these negotiations, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of going over there himself?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be delighted.

Mr. McNEILL: In the event of no other meeting taking place, such as the right hon. Gentleman desires, will the Government expedite the decision on this question, which they have hung up for months and which is causing the present situation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government would in no circumstances depart from the Treaty. Convenient or inconvenient we shall adhere to that. Whatever else breaks down that must not.

Mr. ERSKINE: Docs the right hon. Gentleman realise that a state of civil war now exists in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not consider that it is as bad as that. There is a great deal of tension, but not many lives have
been lost in the last few weeks, and the greater part of the loss has taken place in the slums of Belfast.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of the last statement of the original answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask whether, now that the Treaty has been signed and when the Bill is through both Houses, His Majesty's Government is still to be responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. When the present Bill establishing the Irish Free State has been passed, the Northern Government will be responsible, as at present, for what takes place in Northern Ireland, subject to certain qualifications which it would take too long to describe now, and the Southern Government will be entirely responsible for Southern Ireland. The kind of action I had in mind was that the Government might have to consider whether it would not be possible to draw some cordon of Imperial troops between these warring factions in the same way as has been done recently with such success in Silesia.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that when the Bill has been passed by Parliament and the Southern Government is in power, we have any power to set a cordon of troops between the two countries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. The frontiers of Ulster, under the 1920 Act, are as much our responsibility as the boundaries of Kent.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman give it away in the Bill now before the other House?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I would ask whether, with a view to decreasing or shortening the period of tension, the Government cannot, in agreement with the Southern Government, arrange to hold the Boundary Commission within a month after the passing of the present Bill, which ho told us originally was the desire of the Southern Government?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the highest legal authorities in the land have held that that Boundary Commission is "off" according to the interpretation of the Treaty after the passing of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting now a long way from the original question.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY (LAND GRANTS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company has disposed of 2,298,000 acres of land in Southern Rhodesia, for which no payment has yet been received; whether the inquiries promised on 28th June of last year included the value of such lands; and if he can now state the value, and also what steps will be taken to recover either the value or the ownership of the land?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure referred to represents approximately the area which at the 31st March, 1918, had been granted by the company under permit of occupation, and the purchase price of which had not yet been paid at that date. Receipts from land held under permit of occupation are credited to land sales account as and when they accrue, and all such receipts since 31st March, 1918, have been so credited. As regards the estimated value of the outstanding revenue on account of land sales, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) on the 28th June last.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the inquiries promised on the 28th June included the value of such lands?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the question and answer of the 28th June, he will find that that point is covered.

GERMAN IRISH SOCIETY.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to recent reports in the Press as to the activities in Berlin of the German Irish Society, and the openly expressed policy of Count Reventlow to organise disruptive propaganda in India, Egypt, and Palestine; and whether representations have been made to the German Government that such warlike declara-
tions are of an unfriendly character and, if persisted in, call for stern diplomatic action?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. I have no information of the nature suggested.

RIVER MERSEY BANKS.

Major HAMILTON: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the question of the repairs to the Mersey banks was taken up with his predecessor and with the Minister of Health as long ago as early in 1920; whether he realises that the condition that the work must be completed by the 1st June will prevent any action being now taken; why this condition has been put into the agreement; whether he will use his influence to have it immediately removed, in view of the fact that it is impossible for any contractor to say when the work can be started on or how long it will take, as it is entirely dependent upon the river being low for some weeks on end; is he aware that the cost of the repairs will now be more than double what it would have been if action had been taken in the summer of 1920; and can he say who was responsible for this delay?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, and as I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his earlier question, there was no effective means of dealing with the case at that time under the Land Drainage Acts. Moreover, no public funds were available to deal with the situation, until the present unemployment drainage schemes were instituted. The extension of the time limit laid down by His Majesty's Government in the case of any individual scheme would raise difficult questions of policy with regard to unemployment, but I will consider the question further in consultation with the other Departments concerned, and will communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

PACIFIC TREATY (SIR A. GEDDES' SPEECH).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by His
Majesty's Ambassador in America in California, which has given rise to a charge of interference in American politics in order to assist the passing of the Pacific Four-Power Treaty; and whether he will make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to influence the American Government or people in a matter which, now that the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is at an end, does not greatly concern this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have noticed in the Press a reference to a speech alleged to have been made by the Ambassador, but I have also seen a statement that Sir Auckland Geddes has categorically denied that he used the words attributed to him. I should have thought that no statement of mine was necessary to make it clear to the United States Government that His Majesty's Government have no desire to interfere in the internal politics of the United States of America.

MR. MONTAGU'S RESIGNATION.

Mr. R. McNEILL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the rule or usage still holds good which requires a Minister of the Crown on resigning office to obtain the sanction of the Sovereign before making any statement involving a reference to proceedings in the Cabinet; whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire obtained such sanction before making his recent speech at Cambridge; and, if so, whether he obtained permission to make his statement elsewhere than in Parliament?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. His Majesty's permission is required before an outgoing Minister can state the reasons for his resignation, and the usual course is to ask the Prime Minister to obtain that permission. This course was followed by my right hon. Friend before the publication of his letter in which, rather than by a statement in this House, he preferred to give the reasons for his resignation.

Mr. McNEILL: Was permission given to make the statement outside the House of Commons, and, if so, is there any precedent for that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that permission has ever been sought as to the place in which the statement is to be made. I saw my right hon. Friend late on Thursday and he informed me he was anxious for the publication of the letter which passed between himself and the Prime Minister, because that would give the reasons for his resignation and dispense him from making a statement in this House.

ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a special Committee, or Commission, to investigate into and report upon the State trading monopoly carried on by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes against which protests have been made by chambers of commerce and trade throughout the country; and whether, if such Committee or Commission is set up, he will include in it an adequate representation of trading and commercial interests in the country with an independent chairman?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 21st ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for South Wilts.

Viscount WOLMER: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to proceed with the projected Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, market, and store at Tidworth?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I understand that the board of management has erected a central store at Tidworth, but has no intention of opening a market there.

Viscount WOLMER: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from the ex-service men's fund?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from any ex-service men's fund. If, as I presume, my Noble Friend refers to the
working capital of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on the 13th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen and the Drake Division of Plymouth.

Viscount WOLMER: Cannot my right hon. Friend tell the House the amount that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have borrowed from this source in order to finance themselves?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already told the hon. Member that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have not borrowed any money from ex-service men's funds, and I have referred him to an answer which shows exactly how they are financed.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is the object of these institutes?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member surely knows that the Navy, Army and Air Force derive great benefit from these institutes.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these institutes sell ladies' underclothing and grand pianos?

GENOA CONFERENCE.

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal upon what grounds the International Labour Conference has offered to attend the Economic Conference at Genoa; and whether it is open to any other conference or body to claim attendance at Genoa and by whom invitations are or will be sent out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation resolved at its meeting in January last to place at the disposal of the Genoa Conference such information as it possessed as to labour and economic conditions in Europe, and also appointed a deputation of six of its members (two Government representatives, two employers' and two workers' representatives) and the Director of the Office to attend the Conference, it invited to do so. Invitations are issued by the Italian Government and the acceptance or not of the offer of the International Labour Organisation will presumably rest with them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have the Government any information as to whether the Italian Government intend to ask this self-appointed delegation to join the Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have no information on that subject. I must not be taken as accepting the implication, which seems to underlie the question, that the International Labour Organisation at Geneva can be classed with any voluntary body which might think it could add to the counsels of the nation by being present.

Mr. G. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Office has decided to make an inquiry of its own and that, in order to avoid implications, this offer was made to the Genoa authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of that.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Does it rest entirely with the Italian Government to say who is or who is not to be present at the Conference?

Sir J. D. REES: Is there any limit at all to the sphere of action of the International Labour Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to define the functions or sphere of activity of the International Labour Organisation without notice of the question. I have been asked about an international gathering for which I have not the direct Ministerial responsibility which attaches to a home Department or to a meeting summoned by our own Government, and I cannot say what will be the procedure here. The Italian Government has, of course, acted on the invitation of the Supreme Council at Cannes. Whether the ultimate determination as to the invitations will rest with the Italian Government, or with the Supreme Council, or with the Conference, I am really not in a position to say.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the fact that America is not sending representatives to Genoa, and that the French Prime Minister, apparently, will be unable to attend, the Cabinet will reconsider the question of
the attendance of the Prime Minister of Great Britain while his presence is so urgently needed in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It was agreed at the meeting of the Supreme Council at Cannes that the Prime Ministers of every nation should, if possible, attend the Genoa Conference in person, and His Majesty's Government intend to act in conformity with that agreement.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not my right hon. Friend think that as so many others are not going, our valuable Premier might be more usefully employed here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I need not say no one has greater reason to desire the continued presence of the Prime Minister in this country than the unfortunate individual who has to act as his deputy when he is absent, but at the same time this is a matter of such consequence, and the part which the Prime Minister has played, and the influence he yields, at these Councils is so great, that it would be a misfortunate not for us alone if he were prevented from going.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did the French Prime Minister indicate to our Prime Minister at their recent Conference at Boulogne that he would not be able to attend the Genoa Conference?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question of that kind.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the Prime Minister's great influence going to be used in the direction of recognizing the Bolshevist Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will postpone his inquiries on that subject till the Debate which the Government will initiate on Monday week.

Sir C. YATE: Can we have any information before that date as to what is to be the policy at Genoa?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I think the Debate is the proper occasion to give the information.

Mr. HOGGE: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his intention to give notice of a vote of confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Mr. HOGGE: This is a different question. The question is whether there will be notice of a Vote of Confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference and not about the Genoa Conference.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I see no occasion for it.

Mr. HOGGE: On this occasion will the Prime Minister himself move this Vote of Confidence in himself?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is very characteristic of the form in which the hon. Gentleman chooses to put his questions. I reply to it simply. We have not yet decided whether my right hon. Friend will himself move the Resolution or whether one of his colleagues will move it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this be a Resolution approving the policy to be pursued at Genoa or approving the policy of holding a conference at all, or simply confidence in the Government?

EAST AFRICA (PRO-INDIAN AGITATORS).

Sir C. YATE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. C. F. Andrews, one of the pro-Indian agitators in East Africa, is reported to have been recently consulting Mr. Gandhi and obtaining his advice upon the East African situation; whether he will give instructions that methods of agitation of this nature shall not be permitted in East Africa; and whether he will refuse permission to land to those persons trying to introduce them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received no information of communications between the Reverend C. F. Andrews and Mr. Gandhi of the kind referred to by the hon. Baronet. If he can furnish me with evidence of the organisation of agitation in East Africa by persons outside I shall give careful consideration to it.

Sir C. YATE: Is it the case that our difficulties in East Africa are caused by the Gandhi agitation in India?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, but I suppose they have been accentuated by it.

Sir C. YATE: Will the agitators be treated there the same as Gandhi has been treated in India?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the authorities on the spot have taken the necessary action.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to compare the Indian agitation for equal rights in Kenya with the agitation of the non-co-operative movement in India?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There would certainly be no excuse for the hon. and gallant Gentleman understanding me to do that. Nothing in the words which have fallen from my lips justifies that. It is a total misapprehension of the facts.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. FORD: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the alleged discovery by the Pasteur. Institute, of Lille, of a vaccine for conferring immunity from tuberculosis on bovine animals; and, in view of the fact that the Pasteur Institute is so largely supported by the French Government as to be almost an official Department, will he consider the advisability of requesting his colleague at the Foreign Office to institute suitable inquiries of the French Government with a view of enabling the treatment to be introduced into this country as soon as possible?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand, however, that the investigation is still in an experimental stage, and the action suggested by my hon. Friend would be premature at the moment. The progress of the investigation is, however, being carefully watched by the Ministry.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. HALLS: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agreements have been arrived at concerning wages and hours of agricultural labourers under
the new scheme of conciliation; and in how many cases the farmers' side have agreed to the same being registered?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The number of areas in England and Wales in which the agricultural conciliation committees have made agreements is 50, and in five areas agreements have been submitted to me for confirmation. The number of agreements in operation at present is 44, of which three are confirmed agreements.

Mr. HALLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last few weeks in Lancashire hundreds of labourers have been locked out for refusing to accept the 54 hours' week, and does he not see that if he had continued the Wages Board he would have prevented the possibility of that happening?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

BROOMHILL COLLIERY.

Mr. CAIRNS: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Broom-hill Colliery owners, after having made an arrangement with the owner of the land on one side of the river Coquet to pump water for colliery purposes out of that river, are threatened with an injunction by the landlord on the other side of the Coquet; and can he take any steps to enable this coal company to get such water from the river, seeing that 1,700 yards of 6-inch main have been laid down for that purpose at a cost of £2,000?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I am aware of the circumstances and I am in communication with the landowner in question, but I have no powers under the existing law to compel him to waive any legal rights, even if it is found that the exercise of them militates against the efficient production of coal.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is it a fact that this landlord refused to grant leave to the Broomhill Coal Company to take water from the river Coquet, and is it a fact that he, as a coalowner, took water from the river Wansbeck for his own Ashington pits?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that he has refused the application referred to
in the question. Apparently the work was done before his permission was asked for. I do not quite know what steps are being taken now, but I have been in communication with him and at present he maintains his objection.

Mr. CAIRNS: Can the Minister blame the miners for decreasing output here when it is the landlord who is doing it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I never thought of blaming the miners. I do not know whether anything else can be done. I should be very glad if I could do anything.

Mr. SPENCER: Can the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government to give statutory powers to compel a landowner who refuses to give permission to carry out an act of this description as early as possible?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not a question for me to decide.

LETTERS (SUNDAY COLLECTION).

Captain HOTCHKIN: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of the business community and the public as a whole, it would be possible to shortly re-establish a Sunday collection of letters?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): As I stated in reply to previous questions on this subject, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement as to the resumption of Sunday collections of letters, but I shall do so as soon as a decision is arrived at by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.

Colonel GRETTON: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to Russia, Germany, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and Canada in the year 1913, and the purchases per head of the population of those countries of such manufactured goods?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer involves a statistical table, which, with the permission of the House, I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the table:

The following statement shows the total value of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured which were exported from the United Kingdom to the undermentioned countries in 1913, and the estimated value per head of the population in each country:


Country.
Total Value.
Estimated Value per head of population.



£
£
s.
d.


Russia (including Finland).
10,255,028
0
1
2


Germany
26,887,653
0
8
0


United States
23,071,391
0
4
9


Commonwealth of Australia.
31,301,204
6
10
4


Dominion of New Zealand.
9,617,361
9
0
0


Union of South Africa.
19,650,161
3
2
9


Dominion of Canada.
20,031,002
2
13
2

FOREIGN EGGS.

Major COLFOX: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to eggs from foreign countries being allowed into Great Britain without being marked, large proportions of these eggs are mixed with new-laid British eggs and sold as such, thus perpetrating a gross fraud on the consuming public; and whether he will be prepared, under the Merchandise Marks Act, to take steps to make it compulsory for all eggs imported into this country to be stamped with indelible ink with the name of the country of origin?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any definite evidence that foreign eggs are, in fact, being sold as new-laid British eggs, I should be glad if he would submit it to me. As regards the second part of the question, the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, does not confer on His Majesty's Government any power such as he suggests, but I would refer him to the answer which I gave on 7th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke.

Major COLFOX: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dried eggs, which are brought from China without any guarantee as to the conditions in respect to sanitation under which they are produced, are being advertised in such a manner as to suggest that these are of home production, thus misleading consumers; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary in order to compel the vendors to state upon the carton in which these dried eggs are sold the name of the country of origin, as provided by the Merchandise Marks Act?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My attention has been drawn to the importation of these dried eggs from China, and to their sale in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend is, however, mistaken in his assumption that His Majesty's Government can take any such steps under the Merchandise Marks Act as he suggests in the second part of his question.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese think the egg is much better if it is five or six years old?

EDUCATION (SECOND CLASS DEGREES).

Mr. MYERS: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in respect of paragraph 3 of Circular 1,253 recently issued to local authorities upon the question of the recognition of second-class degrees, he will regard the refusal to recognise any such degree of modern universities and the recognition of all second-class degrees of Oxford and Cambridge a case in which no attempt has been made to discover the relevant circumstances; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take in order to ensure that local authorities and governing bodies adopt the proper interpretation of the honours clause in these cases?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The question which the Board have to consider is whether an excessively liberal use is being made by local education authorities of their discretion to make extra payments in respect of good honours degrees below those of the first
class, that is whether they can recognise for the calculation of grant the expenditure involved by such payments. The Board are not in a position to press local education authorities to make payments which they do not desire to make or penalise them if they do not make them. The Board have not committed themselves to the permanent recognition for grant of additional payments made to all holders of Oxford and Cambridge second-class degrees without discrimination, but as regards the financial year 1921–22 I do not think that occasion for reduction of grant arises in the circumstances stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DESERTERS.

Major COHEN: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are still cases of desertion from the Army of men who were serving on duration-of-war attestations; and, if so, how such men are dealt with when they surrender themselves or bring their whereabouts to notice?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are still some men unaccounted for who were serving on duration-of-war attestations. These men are not necessarily in a state of desertion, but they cannot be traced. Therefore, they have not been discharged from the Army. When such men surrender themselves or bring their whereabouts to notice as being in a state of desertion, their cases are immediately investigated and dealt with on their merits. The soldier is not withdrawn from his civil occupation except in abnormal circumstances sufficiently serious to necessitate trial by court martial. The usual procedure if the man voluntarily signs a confession of desertion is to dispense with his trial and carry out his discharge, which is done without the man leaving his civil occupation. It is only where there have been previous offences of desertion, or other serious offences, that any departure is made from the normal custom. Extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration in dealing with all cases. If the facts show that a man was irregularly released instead of being demobilised, then the only formality necessary is to effect his discharge forth-
with. Men, therefore, who have not been released from their duration-of-war attestations by the issue of proper discharge or demobilisation papers should communicate by letter with the officer i/c records of the unit with which they served, giving their regimental numbers, names and particulars of service, in order that their cases may be dealt with in the manner described.

BACON (PURCHASES).

Major COHEN: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, seeing that as from the 1st September, 1921, down to the present date every man is compelled to purchase ¾ lb. of bacon weekly out of his ration money, and that officers commanding have been instructed that under no conditions may this bacon be purchased except from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, he will state the approximate monthly tonnage and value represented by this compulsory purchase from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 14th instant to the hon. Member for Portsmouth Central.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is not this compulsory purchase of bacon an obvious breach of the Truck Act?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why not? Are not they compelled to purchase at a certain price? Is not that a breach of the Truck Act? Perhaps the Attorney-General will reply?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISMISSALS).

Mr. RAPER: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many ex-service men, how many non-service men, and how many women have been discharged from Government Departments during the month of February?

Mr. YOUNG: Information is, I regret, not available showing the actual number of employés discharged from Government Departments during the month of February. The net reduction in the
number of persons employed in the three categories during the period in question was as follows:

Permanent and temporary staff together.

Ex-service men, 435, or 0.3 per cent. of the number of ex-service men employed.

Non-service men, 792, or 0.7 per cent. of the number of non-service men employed.

Women, 1,577, or 1.7 per cent. of the number of women employed.

Temporary staff alone.

Ex-service men, 1,116, or 2.2 per cent. of the number of ex-service men temporarily employed.

Non-service men, 370, or 6.8 per cent. of the number of non-service men temporarily employed.

Women, 1,736, or 5.4 per cent. of the number of women temporarily employed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CLERICAL CLASS APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. RAPER: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will waive the proposed examination in July next for the clerical class (male) and make appointments by a central board under the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, in order to obtain the best class of temporary clerk for permanent appointments, the majority of temporary clerks (ex-service) having given efficient service as such for over two years?

Mr. YOUNG: The Lytton Committee in their third Interim Report recommended the holding of a further limited competition for the clerical class, open to ex-service men temporarily employed in Government Departments. I regret that I am unable to agree to the proposal in the latter part of the question.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that within the last 12 months a number of appointments have been made under that old Order in Council?

Mr. YOUNG: For a certain period they were made, but the time has now come according to the recommendations, or it will have come at some future time, for a further examination limited as I have described.

TUBE RAILWAYS, LONDON (TREASURY GUARANTEE).

Mr. GILBERT: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what are the terms of the agreement entered into with the London Underground Railway Company for the extension and improvement of the tube railways in London and district; whether it means a capital payment to the company or the guarante only of the interest on certain loans; and can ho state what is the total financial responsibility involved to the Government?

Mr. YOUNG: The agreement between the Treasury and the London Underground Railway Company is not yet finally completed, and full details cannot therefore yet be published. In substance and subject to various conditions, the Treasury guarantees principal and interest of issues of debentures to be made by the London Electric Railway Company and the City and South London Railway Company up to a combined total amount of £5,000,000. There is no question of a capital advance by His Majesty's Government, which would be outside the terms of the Trade Facilities Act.

Mr. GILBERT: Is it the intention of the Underground Railway Company to provide a sinking fund in order to pay off the capital?

Mr. YOUNG: That is the sort of thing about which I am not to-day able to make any detailed statement.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the remarks recently made by Mr. Justice McCardie on the tardy and extravagant administration of an estate by the Public Trustee, the cost having amounted to nearly 50 per cent. of its total value; and whether it is proposed to make any inquiry into the working of the Department?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have been asked to reply. As to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Belper on the 16th instant. I am unaware that Mr. Justice McCardie made any such suggestion. If he had
done so it would have been wholly unfounded. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The administration of the Department has been inquired into very recently by a Committee presided over by Sir George Murray, and comprising eminent members of the business world.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Did that Committee consider that economies had not been effected and were very necessary?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have no doubt that the Department at present is conducted on the most economical basis. The figures which I have already given will show that a great deal of misconception has arisen as to the report.

INDIAN PRESS ACTS.

Sir C. YATE: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, before the Bill for the repeal of the Indian Press Acts, the assent to the introduction of which has already been given, is finally sanctioned, he will consider the inadvisability of permitting any weakening of the powers of the Government in this respect?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I gather that by "finally sanctioned" my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the possibility of disallowing the Act, under Section 69 of the Government of India Act, after it is passed. My Noble Friend will, of course, when that time arrives, give full consideration to all the circumstances, and to the terms of the Measure as passed in deciding what course he should adopt.

Sir C. YATE: In view of the vilification of the Government of India that, hitherto has been permitted in the Indian Press, will the Noble Lord see that the Government of India and its servants, both British and Indian, have full powers to suppress it?

Earl WINTERTON: This Bill has not yet passed through its penultimate stage in the Indian Assembly. Obviously it would be improper to make any comment on the action that the Indian Government may take after the Bill has passed.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the Noble Lord aware that those whose duty it has been to watch the Indian Press think that a retention of these powers is very necessary, and will he make representations to that effect?

Earl WINTERTON: I will make no representations which—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir John Hope.

TRAMWAY TRACTION, EDINBURGH.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in the event of the Edinburgh Town Council deciding to erect span wires for electric tramcars in Princess Street, he would consider the proposed inquiry by his Department unnecessary?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): As I stated on Monday, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Kincardine and Western Division, the consent and approval of the Minister of Transport to the use of any system of mechanical power on the tramways is a statutory requirement. Having regard to the acute local differences of opinion, I think the inquiry should proceed in any event.

Sir J. HOPE: Has the Ministry of Transport power to interfere with the erection of centre poles?

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the objection is considerably greater?

Mr. NEAL: The whole matter, I think, should be inquired into.

VEHICLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Captain HOTCHKIN: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the interests of the public and the greater safety of all users of the roads, he can see his way to promote legislation to make it compulsory for all vehicles to carry a rear light?

Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer
given on 15th February to the hon. Member for Finchley, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the safety of pedestrians and whether they have to carry rear lights to protect them against motorists?

WEST HAM RATE LEVY.

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians have postponed the declaration of their rate for the six months ending September next on two occasions in consequence of the Government not definitely deciding as to whether they intend to loan to the guardians the sum of £300,000; that the guardians are compelled to declare their rate on Thursday, 23rd March; if he is aware that unless the loan is at once granted to the guardians, it will mean that the poor law rate of the union will be increased by 1s. 7d., which will make their total rate 6s. 1d. in the £; and if he can state what rate of interest will be charged on the loan if granted?

Sir A. MOND: The application of the guardians for a loan, and the terms upon which it should be granted, including the rate of interest to be charged, will be considered this afternoon by the Committee presided over by Sir Harry Goschen, and a decision will be given forthwith.

Mr. THORNE: Will the decision be in the hands of the board of guardians to-morrow before they make their rate?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, it will.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Army Excess Vote, 1920–21, and Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote, 1920–21, may be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. HOGGE: As this is a very unusual Motion, would my right hon. Friend mind telling us what is its exact purpose?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This authorises us to take on a Supply day, without converting it into a non-Supply day, Excess Votes in regard to two Services relating, not to the expenditure of the current year but to the expenditure of the year before the current year. These Votes have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and they have received the sanction of that Committee. They have passed the scrutiny of that Committee. I ought in frankness to say that it has been the practice to include these Excess Votes in the Consolidated Fund Bill at the end of the year, and it is in order to comply with that practice that I have put down and moved this Motion.

Mr. MILLS: Should I be in order in drawing attention to a question on the Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote before the vote on this Motion is taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, not on this Motion. The hon. Member must wait until the House gets into Committee on the Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Army Excess Vote, 1920–21, and Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote, 1920–21, may be considered in Committee of Supply.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

GOVERNMENT POSITION.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the position of the Government, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. S. Walsh.]

RETAIL MILK PRICE.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of the retail price of milk, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir W. Lane Mitchell.]

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the importance of research to agriculture, and to move a Resolution.—[Commander Bellairs.]

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the time in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man being in advance of Greenwich mean time during a certain period of the year." [Summer Time Bill [Lords.]

SUMMER TIME BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923.

Colonel MILDMAY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by five men.
I am fully conscious that I have not the technical and departmental knowledge entitling me to speak with any authority as to military requirements, but, equally, do I realise that we Members of the House of Commons, as representing our constituents, have to balance carefully the military and the financial requirements of the moment. A little time ago there was much senseless complaint that the Government did not, as soon as the Geddes Committee's Report was published, instantaneously announce their intention of carrying into effect every recommendation which the Committee had made. By whom were such complaints made? By individuals and by newspapers who were manœuvring for position at a possible General Election. I will not labour the point; I will only say that great is the temptation to strain the truth in the unwholesome atmosphere of a by-election. The self-appointed critics knew well enough, as all of us know, that these reductions could not be effected by a stroke of the pen and without that detailed consideration connected with their adjustment to world-wide policy which was their due. Obviously, the balance between those world-wide responsibilities and our ability to discharge the same must be most carefully considered, and to grudge the time necessary for that process is to invite disaster.
Under these circumstances, private Members, who, although they may have
served in the War, are lacking in the experience of professional soldiers, ask, first, what is the view entertained with regard to these Estimates by those in high command at the War Office. Of course, to a certain extent their lips are sealed; and, this being so, should they be regarded as approving these Estimates? That inquiry brings us at once up against a question of perennial difficulty at the Admiralty and the War Office, and the Admiralty especially, for long years past. Ought the Sea Lords, and ought the members of the General Staff, to resign if, in their view, the Estimates will fail to provide adequate forces for the defence of our national interests? That is not an easy question to answer. There is the consideration that officers so resigning will be committing hara-kiri, and that they will be putting an end to their careers. Let us put it on higher ground than that, because British officers are never likely to allow such considerations to influence their sense of duty. It is a very delicate question; but the principle which seems to have found general acceptance in this connection is that it is the duty of the naval and military advisers of the Government, after pointing out plainly and bluntly the possible dangers which may result from excessive reductions, to devote all their energies, to ensuring that the sum of money available in their own particular Department shall be so spent as to conduce to the greatest national advantage.
All the same it is only to be expected that many of us, who may be described as unwise in such matters, should wish to know what is in the mind of those in high position at the War Office. I am not in the confidence of the Chief of General Staff, but although I have not been told, I have derived the impression that the General Staff is of opinion that, in view of the responsibilities that they have to guard, our present military forces are no more than adequate, but, assured by the Secretary of State for War that financial considerations are paramount, and that the financial risk of continuing expenditure at its present height is greater than the military risk of reductions, they have no option but to bow their heads, on the distinct understanding that the responsibility for running military risks is not theirs, but is assumed by the Government. This being so, it is for us Members of Parliament, while we recognise that in
these times of great pecuniary stress economies in the Navy, Army, and Air Force are absolutely essential, to insist, in the words of the Resolution passed by the ex-service Members of the House last week—
That the extent and nature of the economies must be measured by the liabilities incidental to the foreign policy of the Government, and that any reductions in Establishment and Services must imply corresponding diminutions of naval and military commitments overseas.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Some ex-service Members.

Colonel MILDMAY: Some ex-service Members were absent. I must confess that investigation on these lines has been most disquieting, and the important speech made by the gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson) on the Army Estimates the other day did not allay our fears. The responsibilities which our dwindling forces are called upon to defend are so indefinite, perhaps so indefinable, and so immeasurable, that one cannot but be uncomfortable. We have Pacts with France and Belgium involving obligations which are at present most vague and nebulous. Still more disquieting are the possibilities further overseas. To mention only one, there is India. If things went wrong in India, and if the disquietude which is at present localised became general and there was a general upheaval, the demands upon our military forces only for the elementary duty of protecting suffering British families throughout that great Empire might easily become impossible to satisfy. I will not pursue that subject, but, with such thoughts springing to our minds, we who are inexperienced in military policy ask ourselves: Is the Government, in proposing to cut down our fighting strength, prejudicing the possibility of expanding our small forces in an emergency, in preference to effecting their economies in another direction, in preference, for instance, to drastic reductions in staffs and administrative services?
I frankly confess that it is such fears most conscientiously felt that have led mc to put down this Motion for reduction. As to alternative reductions, I am not going into particulars, except to mention two points, merely as illustrations. The London Command is to go. Is there any reason why the Western Command should
continue? I know it is said that it is desirable it should be continued for the reason that the General Officer Commanding there is entrusted with the disposition of troops in the case of labour unrest in South Wales. He has no troops, and, if he wished to gather troops for that purpose, he would have to collect them from another Command. I maintain that reason is not sufficient to justify the continuance of that Command. The General Officer residing in the Command from which the troops are to be taken, in view of his knowledge of the officers, would be the best man to have control of them in any such emergency. I think I am right in saying, further, that when last there was a prospect of disturbance in the coalfields of South Wales a special General Officer was brought in to handle and dispose of the troops, and the General Officer of the Western Command was ignored. From all I can hear from those who really are able to talk with authority on the subject, and who have served in very high places in that Command, the services required of the General Officer Commanding hardly justify the continuance of that Command. Is any serious cut really contemplated in the establishment at the War Office? Soldiers will tolerate reductions in rifles, in sabres, and in guns far more kindly if they see that, simultaneously, proportionate reductions are being made in Whitehall and in officialdom as well. We all know that this kind of reduction is very difficult for the Secretary of State to undertake. It is the most invidious task. You might as well ask a man to saw off the branch on which ho is sitting as ask him to reduce his own office on his own initiative. If it is known that he has a free hand in the duty of making reductions by several millions: if it is known that, under the terms of a broad and general instruction, he is going to cut down particular offices, his position becomes too difficult, and he incurs a deadly unpopularity. He is called on to injure his own immediate associates, who work hard and most irreproachably, in order to please him. It is almost impossible for him to do so in the case of the Headquarters Staff of the Army at Whitehall.
It seems to me it has become necessary to apply a far sharper and more specific form of pressure, and that the only effective way to do it is by saying, "It is greatly regretted that the House of Com-
mons insists upon cutting down the Army and the staff of the War Office in Whitehall by, say, a quarter or a half, and six months hence only a corresponding sum of money will be available." I am quite sure the Secretary of State will agree with me that such a peremptory injunction would ease his position, and lighten his task and his responsibility. He could then go to the heads of the various Departments and say that this was being done by order of these something, something, politicians. I know the kind of expletives which would be used, because I was familiar with messes on the Western Front. He could say, "These politicians absolutely insist that six months hence and thenceforward your Department shall only get three-quarters or one half, as the case may be, of the money it has hitherto drawn, and you must make your own arrangements." That means there would be no personal odium against him, and things would go on in future, after the reductions were made, just as well as they did in the past.
I am not going to argue as to the necessity of this or that branch of the War Office. I frankly confess I have not got the knowledge entitling me to do so. Admittedly, those who are working at all these branches are conscientious men, working very hard indeed and firmly persuaded that the work they are doing is absolutely essential to the public safety; but am I quite wrong in thinking—and I have taken some trouble to ascertain the position of affairs—that this is not so, and that fully half of what they do is unconsciously manufactured between themselves, but that it needs some detachment from the office to be able to see that this is the case? Here is a bold suggestion from one who, perhaps, ought to describe himself as an ignoramus. Scrap half the civilians in the War Office, not on the accounting side, but on the so-called financial side. That is a very bold suggestion, for, without doubt, the Treasury would join with the War Office in loudly objecting. None the less, I believe the thing has to be done, and the doing of it would oblige military administrative officers to acquire proficiency in the financial side of their work, and to undertake responsibilities which should be theirs; and incidentally we would save half a million of money.
I give these two points as instances of many other reductions, comparatively small in themselves, which might be made and which, in the aggregate, would amount to a considerable sum. Obviously, educational establishments, such as the Staff College, Hythe and others, must be kept going at all costs, but with regard to Sandhurst, I should like, tentatively and most deferentially, to make a bold suggestion. Abolish Sandhurst as it is; convert it into a senior officers' and junior officers' school, and, instead of Sandhurst as it is, introduce military degrees and military triposes at the universities. The trouble about Sandhurst is that it leads to specialisation at too early an age. We all know that university life broadens outlook, and such a change would, I am quite certain, admit of very considerable advantage. I am not going to speak at greater length, because I understand many are anxious to speak, and it is desirable the Committee should hear representative opinions from all quarters of the House. I have just one more plea to make; Back up the Territorial Force for all you are worth. We all know how splendidly they proved themselves in warfare, and I think there is hardly a military authority in England but will agree that a very great mistake was made in establishing the new Army on an independent basis. It should have been built up on the basis of the Territorial organisation. At all costs, keep in being the Territorial cadres. I know many people are of opinion that in 20 or 30 years' time the Territorial Force is all that will be remaining to us. As to that, I am not a prophet, but, considering the reaction and the War weariness, I think the response which has been made to appeals for recruits to the Territorial Force has been quite amazing.
Warfare in the future, if we are to have war, which may God forfend, will be national war. Get the Army inside, and not apart from, the nation. I feel I owe an apology to the Committee, and that I can perhaps be justifiably regarded as a type of the presumptuous politician who is a cockshy for British officers all over the world, but I return in all seriousness to my original theme and my main theme. The Secretary of State for War will acquit me of any desire to embarrass the Government. Honestly, there is no one in the House who would do so with greater reluctance, but it is only right to
say that ex-service members are gravely disquieted lest, in view of our serious commitments, we are unjustifiably cutting down our fighting strength in preference to effecting desirable economies elsewhere, and I am moving this reduction in the hope that the Government will be able to allay the fears which I know are very widely felt.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not propose to attempt to follow my right hon. Friend in the very interesting detailed criticisms which he has made. The difficulty which he felt, I recognise I should feel even more acutely. My technical knowledge is far less than his, but with all respect to him, I rather doubt whether anything is to be gained by any attempt to deal in detail with the proposals of the Government. I am one of those who think that the vice of the Geddes Committee policy was that people outside the Government were instructed to make detailed proposals as to economies inside Departments. Although I should be the last to decry the great skill and ability with which the Committee carried out their work, I think it would have been preferable not to have begun at that end at all. The Government should have first made up their minds, if necessary with the aid of some expert Committee, as to how much the country could afford for these services—very much as my right hon. Friend suggested should be done in reference to a particular branch, I think the Headquarters Staff. Having made up their minds that if the country was to pay its way, it could not spend more than a certain amount on the Army, then they should have left it entirely to the expert military advisers to say how the Army was to be brought down to that figure.
I believe that would have been a sounder plan, and one which would have produced, on the whole, better results and less unpopularity in the Army itself. I recognise that considerable reductions have been made. The House must be grateful to the Government for having done even as much as they have done. My only regret is that it was not done earlier, and that the tremendous expenditure in such places as Iraq—it is not included here, but I take it as an illustration—was not cut down earlier. These expenses might quite as easily have been cut down in 1919, and that would have
given us many millions which might have been available for reduction of taxation, or in order, if it was thought necessary, to improve the fighting strength of the Army. The reason I have ventured to intrude upon the Committee is not, however, because I wish to discuss that aspect of the matter. I was very much struck by the warning given at the end of the speech of the Secretary of State for War as to the military danger which his advisers thought we were running by making these reductions. It was a courageous statement to make from the Treasury Bench. I agree that it is for the Government to take responsibility for a policy of that kind and not to attempt to push it off on their military advisers.
The warning was greatly emphasised from a wholly different point of view by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson) in one' of the most interesting maiden speeches ever made in this House. His case is one which really merits very close attention from the Committee and raises questions of the very greatest importance, going right down to the safety of this country, and even further than that. He says that at this moment there are as many armed men in Europe as there wore in 1913, although the German army has been reduced from 800,000 to 100,000 and the Austrian army from 400,000 to 30,000. In other words, there has been an increase of more than a million men in the countries of Europe, other than Germany and Austria. That is a terrible comment on the results of the policy which we have pursued since the Armistice. I am bound to say that I do not feel sure that that policy, which has been in some respects a policy of adventure, has been altogether abandoned. My hon. and gallant Friend gave, with perfect accuracy, a very formidable list of the increased commitments which we now have, compared to our pre-War commitments. He pointed to the perennial commitments that we have with reference to this country and Ireland, India, and Egypt, and he added Hong Kong, the Rhine, Silesia, Constantinople, Palestine, Iraq, and the two pacts with France and Belgium. I think that is a very formidable fact for the whole of the country to consider. I do not deny that some of those commitments—I do not think all of them—were inevitable, but I do think
it is a great pity that, having taken these commitments, having taken upon us burdens which really greatly add to our difficulties, and in a sense weaken the strength of the Empire, we should at the same time have contrived to convey the impression in all foreign countries that we have grabbed everything we desire and that we alone have come out of the Conferences at Paris with greatly increased power and prestige. It seems a deplorable result of our diplomacy that we should have, in fact, weakened ourselves and at the same time achieved a reputation for national greed unequalled in the annals of this country.
Now we are not apparently satisfied with that, and, though we are not allowed to know very much about it, we are apparently negotiating pacts with both France and Belgium, which my hon. and gallant Friend says will add to our commitments and liabilities. We are not told exactly what those pacts are. If we inquire, we are told that we are hampering the negotiations of the Government and that we must wait until the Government has completed the pacts before the House of Commons is to express any opinion on the policy which underlies those pacts. We all know that by that time it will be-perfectly useless for the House of Commons to express any opinion, for, if it does so, it will be said that the House of Commons is seeking to go behind the honourable engagements which have been made on behalf of this country, and therefore I must venture, very respectfully, to say that the policy of entering into any separate military engagement with any individual Power is, in the circumstances, of the highest degree of unwisdom. I hope that any engagement which we may undertake will be of a most restricted character. If we make any such engagement to an individual Power of that kind, apart from other objections which I shall have to touch upon in a moment, we are, as it seems to me, giving a right to that Power with whom we have made that engagement to press us to maintain armies sufficient to make the engagement that we have entered into a real one and not a mere pretence. I agree with the argument that my hon. and gallant Friend presented—though I am afraid the conclusions I draw from it are different—that military retrenchment depends on military policy.
You cannot have a policy of military adventure and a policy of military retrenchment at one and the same time
I am afraid that I have now reached the limit of my agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. What, if I understood him rightly, does he propose I He does not criticise the policy; he accepts it, and he says—which, if you accept it, is perhaps true—you must have an increased Army in order to fulfil the engagements and commitments that you have undertaken. I listened very attentively to his speech, and when he came to the concluding passage, where he put forward what he actually proposed, what his suggested policy, was, he said that you ought to have an Army sufficiently large to prevent war. That is a version of our old friend that we used to hear so much about, namely, If you wish for peace you must be prepared for war, the maxim on which all Europe acted up to 1914, and the year 1914 seems to me the final condemnation of that policy. Just let us examine what my hon. and gallant Friend proposed. He recited to the Committee, quoting the Secretary of State, what the present proposals would give us—one division in 15 days and a cavalry division, a second division in from 15 days to six weeks, and a third or fourth division in four months. My hon. and gallant Friend said that is what we should have then, but not what we have now, and he compared with that what we had in 1914, which was six divisions, but the six divisions were not sufficient to prevent war. Therefore, if you are to prevent war, you must have more than six divisions.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: They saved the Channel ports.

Lord R. CECIL: That may be, but I am dealing with the policy of my hon. and gallant Friend, which is to prevent war by having a large army. I do not wish, of course, to be at all discourteous to my hon. and gallant Friend who interrupts. Therefore, six divisions are not enough to prevent war, and if my hon. and gallant Friend's speech means anything it means that he advocates an army larger than six divisions. He said more than that; he said that the present condition of Europe is more dangerous than it was in 1914, and he gave a number of reasons, which, at any rate, have some validity, for saying that that was so. Therefore,
if six divisions were insufficient in 1914 to prevent war, you would have to have, I do not know, how many, but a great many more than the six divisions now. He did not indicate—perhaps he would say that it was improper for him to do so—the cost of this policy of having an army large enough to prevent war, but I wish to be quite fair to him. He had an alternative, an alternative which he did not at all recommend, which was that if you cannot have an army large enough to prevent war, you should have, at any rate, an army large enough to secure victory. There, again, I feel great difficulty, because he said that we had six divisions at the beginning of the war, but that in order to obtain victory we had to have 80 divisions. I do not know that my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates an army of 80 divisions, or even an army which could be readily expanded to 80 divisions. I cannot help feeling that this examination—I hope it has not been an unfair examination—of what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, leads one to two conclusions, namely, that if his policy is to be pursued we should certainly have to have conscription—indeed, there was a phrase in his speech which evidently indicated his want of reliance on a voluntary system—and also that the cost would be terrific. I have no quarrel with his argument as an argument. I have already expressed my humble admiration of it. It proceeded with irresistible force from his premises to his conclusions, but to my thinking the proper reply is that his premises are wrong.
If you are going to adopt a military policy, as some aspects of the Government's policy have been, and perhaps still are, my hon. and gallant Friend's conclusion is inevitable. There is only one alternative, and that is resolutely to adopt a policy based on general disarmament and the substitution of some other means for the settlement of international disputes than war. I most fully agree with those who say that disarmament by one country, by this country alone, is an impracticable proposal. No one admires the work that was done at Washington more than I do, no one welcomes the proceedings at Washington more than I do, but it is absurd to suppose that naval disarmament by itself is going to diminish the chances of war in Europe. It is not going to do so. I can
imagine some people who would say that, if that is the only thing we are going to do, we are actually increasing the chances of war, because a navy is necessarily, inevitably much more of a defensive force than an army. No one in his senses believes that either our Navy or the American Navy is a serious danger to the peace of Europe, and, for other reasons perhaps, neither is the Japanese Navy. Therefore, it is madness to stop there. We must have general disarmament if we are to avoid the conclusions which my hon. and gallant Friend so well pointed out, and if we are to avoid the policy, which is the only other policy, which he recommended.
May I say that I think the plan of the Government, if it be part of their plan, to have separate pacts with different countries—I am anxious to avoid names as far as I can—is a mistake? As far as we know, there is no provision for disarmament proposed in those pacts at all. That is not the proposal. It is merely proposed to have a defensive alliance. I most fully agree that if you are to get general disarmament in Europe, you have got to make some provision for giving security to those countries which you are asking to reduce their armaments, but not by special, individual agreements. I am sure that that is going to do a very poor service. It is not true that the only danger to the peace of Europe is on the eastern frontier of France. That may be one spot of danger, but it is not the only one. Anyone who knows anything, anyone who reads the papers, knows quite well that there are dangers, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, in many other quarters of Europe. No one who has the recollection of how the last War began will say that a conflagration once set alight can be limited wherever it occurs to any part of Europe. A mere pact between this country and that country is not sufficient security for the peaco of Europe, nor are you going to get it without disarmament, and such measure of security given by Treaty as will enable the countries of Europe generally to limit their armaments.
I am bound to point out that all this is foreseen and provided for in the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is nothing new about the situation. Anyone who considered the cause of peace in 1918, 1919, or any other year
must have known perfectly well that you cannot secure peace without general reduction of armaments, and that that is the only real security you have got. And it must be done by a general reduction, and not by a specific reduction in this or that country. Let us be quite frank. Would the peace of Europe be really secured if the Western Powers were to disarm altogether, and leave the Powers of Central Europe armed to the teeth? I am inclined to think the cause of peace would be even then no greater. We must have general disarmament. My hon. and gallant Friend made a reference to the League of Nations, perhaps not altogether of a friendly kind. I know his views in his own profession, and elsewhere. I know that his views have done much to make progress with the idea of the League difficult in his own profession. I regret it. I am sure he will allow me to have my own opinion, as he has his. But, after all, what is his alternative? What is it he really proposes? Is it merely a return to pre-War conditions? Is that really what he wants? Does he really think we are to have alliances and counter-alliances, and competitive armaments and, ultimately, because the whole world is tired and weary of them, another desolating war? I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London saying to me across the Floor of the House that, for his part, he was a believer in the text that, "When a strong man armed keepeth his house, his goods are in peace." It is a dangerous thing to quote the Bible, unless you have read it carefully. If he had done so, he would have remembered that the strong man represents the forces of evil, and it is pointed out that, sooner or later, however strong he makes himself, he will be overcome by a stronger than he, who will take from him the armour in which he trusted, and divide his spoils.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The quotation is correct; the deduction is quite wrong.

Lord R. CECIL: My hon. and gallant Friend would do well to read the passage as carefully as I have done since my right hon. Friend quoted it in this House, before he contradicts me.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I say I have read it very carefully?

Lord R. CECIL: I do not wish to get into an unseemly controversy about the meaning of a passage of Scripture. I only put it in because it had been quoted to me. I say with great confidence that that is the real reply to my right hon. Friend. Let them make their armies as strong as they will, they will never be secure. They will merely incite their enemies to build armies and armaments against them. In the end, as Napoleon himself pointed out, material forces are infinitely weaker than the forces which are not material, and, if you are going to have peace, you have got to rely, as a mere matter of business, on the immaterial, the spiritual forces of mankind. It is your only chance. If you do not do that, there is DO hope for the peace of the world, and there is no hope for the safety of the country. The only hope of peace and economy, although that is a lesser matter, lies in the resolute pursuance of a real policy of peace, based on some such plan as the League of Nations, for if not, unquestionably, whether it happens in our lifetime or the lifetime of-those who come after us, a much more desolating war will overtake the country, and Europe as a whole will be reduced to the condition in which Russia and other parts of the world now find themselves.

Viscount EDNAM: The hon. and gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), at the beginning of his speech last Wednesday, appealed to the Speaker and this House for that indulgence which is, I understand, by custom accorded an hon. Member making his maiden speech. If the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal, with his wide experience, his seniority and his great eloquence, had a claim to such an indulgence, how much greater must be my claim and my appeal. In forming an opinion on the question of the future size of the Army, one must look at it from an Imperial aspect as well as from an economic aspect. I am fully sensible of the great dangers which beset our Empire at the present time, but I am the representative in this House of a middle-class constituency, the electors of which, as a whole, are, perhaps, harder hit by the present high rate of taxation than those of almost any other constituency in Great Britain. On the one hand, no Member of this House, whatever his views, whatever his opinions, could
possibly have listened unmoved to the grave warning delivered last Wednesday by the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal, for who is better suited to judge of the situation than he? He told us then that the Estimates for 1922–23 now before the Committee were not sufficient for the defence of our Empire, that we were going to maintain an Army which was just large enough to lose a war, and that we were going to take a strategic risk which we have no right to take, even when faced with the alternative risk of financial bankruptcy.
On the other hand, I realise that unless the War Office can effect economies, as all Government Departments must do, the burden of all taxpayers, and of my constituents, many of them men and women with email fixed incomes which have remained stationary since 1914, while the cost of living and taxation has risen to impossible heights, will be no longer possible to bear. It appears to me, therefore, that we have no alternative but to maintain a fighting force sufficient for our home defence, sufficient also for the maintenance of our overseas liabilities, until such times as those liabilities become more quiescent. and until such times as some of them, such as the Rhine, Palestine, and Iraq, are automatically written oft so far as the Army is concerned; sufficient also in the opinion of the general staff, our expert advisers, for any unforeseen contingencies which might arise within the next few years, or for any expeditions upon which they consider it is possible we might have to embark. So it appears to me that this Army will have to be at least as strong, every whit as formidable, every whit as efficient as that "contemptible" little Army of 1914, although, as I pointed out, it is for the General Staff to advise its actual size. But we must count the cost; we must try every means of finding a method of maintaining such a fighting force, and still be able to effect economies in our military expenditure, and I do not believe such a thing is impossible.
It is in this spirit that I would like to make a few criticisms of the Estimates before us. I was until quite recently a regimental soldier. I was a regimental soldier the greater part of my service, and I am afraid, like many regimental soldiers, I would like to see the establishment of all staffs, and the ancillary and auxiliary services very much reduced,
and the establishment of the fighting forces—the man who fires the rifle, and the man who fires the gun—increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told us last Wednesday that these Services were incapable of further reduction. I am not inclined to accept that statement. I submit to the Committee that it is not apparent why the establishment of these Services and of the staffs at the War Office and of Commands should have been so greatly increased as compared with 1914. In 1914 the ratio which the ancillary Services, miscellaneous Services and staff bore to the fighting Services, including the engineers, was roughly 20 to 152. It is in the establishments before us 32 to 120, although you include the Tank Corps within the fighting Services. The right hon. Gentleman said on Wednesday that cuts were being made from the ancillary and auxiliary Services and not from the fighting forces. In the reduction of 33½ thousand all ranks, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes as a result of the Geddes Committee Report, 28½ thousand have been taken from the fighting forces.
5.0 P.M.
I submit that by a reduction of these Services and of the staffs to the 1914 ratio, many of those battalions, batteries, and cavalry regiments which now stand condemned could be reprieved. Take one example. Perhaps it is an example I should not take, but it seems to me that it is a difficult one for the right hon. Gentleman to explain away. If in 1914, 117 chaplains were thought sufficient for an Army of 172½ thousand, why on earth should 175 chaplains, an increase of 58, be required for an Army of only 152½ thousand? It seems to me that the work of many of these reverend gentlemen might well be done by civilian clergy at a smaller salary and a reduced cost to the taxpayer.' Then, again, in the case of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, our cavalry establishment has been halved, and our horse-drawn artillery and transport, presumably, are very much reduced, as compared with 1914, and yet in these establishments there is an increase in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. Again, take the case of the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants. In 1914 the whole of the pay and accounts of the Army were dealt with by 744 men. Yet it appears that in future it will take
1,890 men to do this work, although the Army is smaller by 20,000. It is hard to believe that this increase is entirely due to correspondence with regard to War accounts. In any case, my humble experience of Army forms dealing with accounts is that they continue for ever, gathering unto themselves vast accumulations of paper inscribed "Passed to you, please," unless strong measures are taken and they are placed in the waste-paper basket, or at least at the bottom of a deep file. I will not weary the House with any more examples. Comparing the proposed establishment of these Services with the establishments of 1914, hon. Members can see for themselves that there is not, I think, a single instance where they have not been increased, although the fighting Services have been considerably reduced. Before leaving the subject of the fighting Services I should like to remark that I cannot help thinking that such a large reduction of the cavalry is most unwise.
Four cavalry regiments have recently been disbanded, and it is now proposed to disband five more, or their equivalent. There are two arguments put forward, I know, by ignorant people against the cavalry. The first is that the European War proved that as a fighting force they were out of date. The second argument is that the aeroplane has taken over the functions of the cavalry. Both these arguments are false. As regards the first one, it is not likely that we shall fight another war where the enemy is able to hold a continuous trench line from sea to sea, or from frontier to frontier. Where-ever the enemy has exposed flanks or a weak spot in his line of defence you will require cavalry in future wars just as you required them in past wars. Four years ago to-day on the Western Front we were standing with our backs to the wall facing the last determined effort by the Germans to secure victory. If the Germans had had their cavalry available on that occasion they would have secured it. If we had had our cavalry available on that occasion we would have stopped the flow of their advance very much sooner than we did. That, I think, is generally recognised and generally admitted by most of the eminent strategists who have studied these operations.
As regards the second argument, the Royal Air Force cannot at present take
over in toto the reconnaissance duties of the cavalry. They can never partly take over their night reconnaissance duties. They cannot be compared with the cavalry as a mobile fighting force capable of shock action which, in spite of modern inventions, remains to-day the most deadly and the most demoralising form of attack. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in spite of the conclusions arrived at by the Geddes Committee that the increased proportion of officers to men was most striking, yet the establishments before the House provide for 600 more officers than in the 1914 establishment, although the Army has been reduced below that of 1914 by a total of 20,000 of all ranks. I do not agree that one of the lessons we learned in the War was that we should increase our proportion of officers to men. On the contrary, we learned from bitter experience of vast officer casualties that it was necessary to send into action a much smaller proportion of officers to men than was ever for a moment contemplated before the War. Therefore, I maintain that we should reduce our peace-time establishment, of officers to below even the 1914 ratio. We have in this country a large reserve of trained officers which can be drawn upon, if required, to replace casualties amongst the regular officers. I will even suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the re-establishment of the old Special Reserve of officers to consist of those officers on the reserve of officers who would be able and willing to do a period of training each year with their old unit. I myself—and I know there are others—would welcome such an opportunity of keeping in touch with my old regiment and of keeping up to date in military training. This Special Reserve would then be the first Reserve to be drawn upon if required to replace casualties amongst the regular officers. Although I realise the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman will experience in compulsorily retiring officers to meet the present reduction in the establishments, yet I would urge upon him, in the interests of economy, the necessity for still further reductions.
One more point before I sit down. I would like to refer very briefly to the Army education scheme. There are few regimental soldiers who do not consider
that the Army education scheme which has been adopted since the War is ambitious, extravagant, and entirely unworkable. Nobody would oppose the very best system of education which the country can afford in our State-aided schools, but the education of the soldier should be completed before he joins the Army. You cannot get a man out of bed at 5 o'clock reveille, drill him all the morning, drill him or make him clean his kit all the afternoon, and then in the evening expect him to absorb Greek prepositions. I myself have the memory of too many weary afternoons spent in vainly teaching my squadron vulgar fractions, having myself a very imperfect knowledge of vulgar fractions, to be a great believer in the Army education scheme. As a result of the Geddes Committee's recommendations, the Army Education Department has been considerably reduced, but it is still bigger than it was in 1914. I do hope that the War Office will confine its ambition, for the present at any rate, to the pre-War standards of education in the Army, and the education of boys and illiterates. In conclusion, I would like to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War does not consider me over-presumptions in putting forward these humble suggestions. I am sure that all hon. Members in this House who have had the honour of serving in the Regular Army are in full sympathy with his difficulties, and have the utmost confidence in him in dealing with them. The final paragraph in the Geddes Report on the Army Estimates says:
We are convinced from our survey of the War Office Estimates that there is great room for economy in men and money without in any way endangering the defence of the Empire.
That statement, applied as it was to the sketch Estimates placed before the Committee, was in my humble opinion perfectly true. I have not attempted to argue that economies cannot be effected, but I believe that some of the economies proposed, especially such a large reduction in our fighting forces, are economies in the wrong direction, and that they will, if carried into effect, endanger the safety of our Empire, and, it is possible, on some future occasion they may lead to the defeat of an Army which hitherto has never known the meaning of the word.

Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: First of all, may I congratulate, on behalf of other members of the same profession, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Viscount Ednam) on his excellent speech? Turning to the subject of the Debate, I should, first of all, like to say, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) who spoke about the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), that I read the meaning of the gallant Field Marshal in a very different way from the Noble Lord. I should like to associate myself entirely with what the gallant Field Marshal said in his warning to the House against reducing our forces in this—I will say—preposterous manner. The gallant Field Marshal meant to say this: that the best safeguard for the preservation of peace can only be found in a sound military organisation, for the strong is less easily attacked than the weak. Secondly, with respect to arbitration, I do not see why practical men, or at all events students of history, have not a right to look upon arbitration as never having yet been successful, because there has been no power behind it to enforce the agreement come to. Therefore arbitration never can and never will be successful until—in the dreams of the Noble Lord—it may be 50 years or it may be 100 years hence—you have an army belonging alone to the League of Nations, and likewise a Navy alone belonging to the League of Nations, and you permit no other nation to have an army or a navy; then you will get your decrees carried out. Until then arbitration docs not seem feasible. I should like to remind the House, while on the subject, that Napoleon Bonaparte in 1799, when he kicked Austria out of Northern Italy, wrote to the Emperor of Austria and said: "Why do you not disarm: France is quite ready and Europe will follow certainly?" The Austrians wrote back and said: "We should be delighted to do so, but Prussia would not agree."
We all remember the Hague Conference and what happened there. Hardly had the curtain rung down, amid derisive laughter, when Russia and Japan were at each other's throats. I would remind hon. Members also that the Washington Conference is not yet ratified. Up till now the Cardwell scheme
has answered the needs of the British Army reasonably well. It will be remembered that the Cardwell scheme was brought in by Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet in 1872 following the downfall of France. France was overthrown by the short service well-trained German army. France had a long service army and it was looked upon as the best army in Europe. Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet was very much alarmed at the absolute un-preparedness of England, and Mr. Card-well, the Minister for War, was asked to bring in a scheme. He brought one in by which he created an effective army reserve by a short service army, that is to say, we gave up enlisting men for 20 years and we enlisted men for seven years with the colours and five years with the reserve. In that way he got a reserve of 60,000 seasoned reservists when war broke out. We saw those reserves brought out for every kind of war. We had to bring out the Army Reserves for the Zulu War, for the South African War, and in the late War, but at any rate the system answered the strategic needs of the nation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Colonel Mildmay) asked what are these stragetic needs of the Empire. If I may give an explanation I should say they are quite simple, and are well known not only to the military experts of the War Office, but to all thinking soldiers of the Army. For every problem we have to face in that direction of Imperial defence we must have sea and land power, and you must start on that basis. No nation can be supreme both on land and sea, and if they try to be they will ruin themselves in the attempt. No nation could be rich enough to do that. As we have decided, for a very good reason, to be supreme on the sea, we want a reasonably sized Army, not like a Continental Power, but at any rate a reasonable Army, say, of six division plus one, that is seven divisions, as we used to have. That Army had to be ready to embark immediately as an auxiliary to the Fleet, to proceed overseas if necessary. There was also the other principle that the Dominions should be able to defend themselves in the first instance until we could come to their assistance. We had nine divisions from India and 15 from the Dominions. We had to have a complete second-line Territorial Army at home
adapted to the civil population to defend our shores when the Regular Army was embarked. We also had to have a Fleet strong enough to keep the seas open so as to be able to combine the Armies of the Dominions and the Mother Country. Those were our strategic needs.
The second-line Army at home was not to be ready until war broke out. They were not to be mobilised until war was declared and therefore they could not be used for some months. Had those Territorial troops been ready when the last war broke out, I doubt whether there would have been that retirement to the Marne. I have gone through the figures, and I have put a blue pencil through all troops which are not fighting troops, and I find that we have 125,000 fighting men. Out of that I find the infantry number 76,000 bayonets of all ranks. Can that number answer the needs of this nation? I say it is grotesque and it is not worth while arguing. That does not include India, but I think we ought to have 80,000 as the bed-rock number in time of peace.
I find that you have reduced the number in India to 73,000 whites. That I unhesitatingly say is wrong, very wrong, and I venture to say that had I been in the position of the Commander-in-Chief of India when that proposal was made I would have resigned, and I would not have put my name to a Measure which might bring disaster on the country. I would like to remind the Committee that 26 years ago, when I came back from the defence of Chitral, I asked Sir George White, "How many men do you want to go to Kabul?" and he said, "We want 80,000, because we shall require 20,000 in the Kyber Pass to keep it open." That was 26 years ago. When we went to Tirah we took 67,000 very fine troops to fight the Waziris, and we had to keep three brigades in order to keep open the roads. Hon. Members will not require any further examples to see whether 73,000 men is sufficient or not.
I apologise for all these anecdotes, but I should like a word or two about this fighting force. I am not out so much to criticise because I know there is a great deal of difference between criticism and execution and that is well known to Ministers and to any practical soldier in the field. I will, however, offer a little constructive criticism. Do hon. Members
think that one cavalry division and one infantry division sufficient to send overseas? Such a proposal needs no further comment. We are told that a second infantry division is to be ready as soon as the technical personnel has been taken from somebody else, and there is no comment needed on such a proposal. We are told that in four months number 3 and number 4 divisions will be ready as soon as special enlistment permits, but that seems to me to be making war in homoeopathic doses. This striking force reminds me of the Carabiniers of Offenbach who were always a little bit late.
I want to conclude by offering a constructive and alternative plan which is very simple. It was a favourite scheme with the late Sir Redvers Buller, (with whom I have discussed it, and I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) himself brought it before this House some years ago. I ask the Minister of War to give it consideration because you will effect great economies by it, and at the same time retain your striking force, and not break up the Regular Army if this plan should be approved of, and I earnestly hope that some consideration may be given to it. You keep your Regular Army and you send it overseas. They remain overseas and never come home. You have only the depots at home, and it is on the same principle as the Honourable East India Company service before the Indian Mutiny with their European regiments, and those regiments never came home. The Regular Army would be quartered in the Mediterranean, Egypt, Palestine, India and other places overseas. That would mean an enormous saving, without the expense of reliefs of regiments, batteries and battalions. The quartering of troops in the Mediterranean zone would give you striking force in a central position. That was the scheme put forward by Sir Redvers Buller and my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and it was also suggested that the Royal Marines should be taken away from the Navy and made into Colonial infantry, as has been done by the French. In the same way Marines are not required, I take it, on board ship in the twentieth century. We know that they were wanted in this way in the eighteenth century when detachments of infantry were put on board to keep discipline amongst the
crews. That is the plan in its broad aspect. No doubt it can be cut up, but I think it is worthy of consideration considering the character of the man in whose brain it was produced. He was a man who served England well, and for this reason I hope some consideration will be given to my suggestion. It may be said that it is hitting at the Cardwell System. All I can say is that I have given much thought to the matter, and I ask, is the Cardwell System the Ark of the Covenant in this business?

Captain GEE: I intervene in this Debate because, although I realise that economies have to be effected, I am rather under the impression that the authorities responsible for the proposed economies are taking the line of least resistance in proposing to do away with something like 2,500 officers in the various units. In the first place, I think they have started at the wrong end of the stick, because we have so many young officers who have had practical experience of war, and whose experienced service would be useful to us for many years to come. Amongst the senior ranks no doubt we have many who are possibly too old to take part in active service again, and have already qualified for a reasonable pension. My intention is to suggest a loophole where big economics might be effected without any reduction in the fighting force or any diminution of the efficiency of that force—I refer especially to that much-belauded Army Education Scheme.
I quite understand that I am laying myself out as an opponent of education. I think there is no one in this House more entitled to say that he believes in education for education's sake more than I do myself, but if the result of the "Army Education Scheme is what is put in front of me as education, then I am bitterly opposed to it. I would like to say that under this new education scheme in the Army we are having the old Army schoolmasters grouped and augmented in the Army Education Corps, and a special section of the War Office has been brought into being for this purpose.
I respectfully suggest that if my plan is adopted a saving to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year could be effected. I would immediately abolish S. D. 8, with the exception of that particular small section
of it which looks after the vocational training to fit a man for a job when he goes back into civil life. I believe I am right, as a result of something like 30 years' service in the Army, 23 of which were spent in the ranks—therefore I am speaking from the point of view of the rank and file man—I believe I am right in the impression that the supervision of most of the educational duties could be very effectively carried out by the Army Chaplain. I have never met an Army Chaplain who would not welcome such a duty. It would give him the opportunity of getting into touch with the men in the barracks, and he would thus be able to carry out his work better. The same policy has been adopted for many years in the Navy. Why therefore cannot we adopt it in the Army?
The haphazard way in which the educational scheme is being carried out is really beyond comprehension. I will only quote cases with which I am conversant. I know of one case where the educational adviser to a brigade was a young officer, a very good fellow, who was a bank clerk in civil life, and his only qualification for the post of educational adviser was to be found in the fact that he was a very good tennis player. His chief assistant was a noncommissioned officer, whose only qualification for the educational staff was that he had a bad knee and could not march. It is called a voluntary education scheme. I do not think there is much that is voluntary about it. Men are expected to go to school for 1¼ hours on four days of the week during ordinary parade time, and to make them good boys they are offered as an inducement 6d. per day extra duty pay when they had obtained a second-class certificate, a certificate which, in view of the millions we are to-day spending on elementary education, 50 per cent. of the boys ought to be able to get before they leave the Board school.
We have got Army schools. I can quite understand many hon. Members who have not had the honour and privilege of serving in the Army being unable to follow me in this matter, but I am sure that those who have served will bear me out when I say that in the old days when we wanted to go in for higher education in order to get promotion we had to sacrifice something; we had to
give up sport, for we were only too eager to go to school and receive education at the hands of the regimental schoolmaster. But that is now practically done away with, and certain Army schools have been brought into existence. What is usual is that an order goes round to submit the names of so many men for a course of study in the schools. The man who is a loafer, in many cases—I speak from experience—the man who wants to dodge regimental duties, will put his name down and the company officer will back him up because he wants to get rid of him. Really the man wants no education at all. I would stop that. I have a personal friend who won high decorations during the War and who, against the wish of his commanding officer, was sent to one of these wonderful Army schools. At the end of two months' training he came out thoroughly qualified as a maker of magic lantern slides!
I want to deal with the more expensive side of this Army scheme, and if it is not wearying hon. Members too much I would like to point out how the money is spent and how it has been and is being wasted. I find that huge libraries are being sent out to each battalion of infantry, to each regiment of cavalry, and to each brigade of artillery. When I speak of libraries under the education scheme, I do not want to mix up with them the ordinary regimental lending library. These are special libraries of educational value sent to the various units I have mentioned under this wonderful educational scheme. May I read one or two of the items? I believe if I do so hon. Members will agree with me that it is a case of education gone mad. I find that under the heading of "Art" we have got no fewer than eight works. I venture to think that the men for whom they are supplied will never read them, because 50 per cent. of those men do not possess a third class certificate in education, which is only the equivalent of the fourth standard certificate in the elementary school. Under the heading of "Art" we have eight works, including the Royal Academy lectures on Painting. Under the heading "Astronomy" we have no fewer than 13 works, including "In the High Heavens" and "In Starry Realms." And I think the Noble Lord who evolved this education scheme must have been in the starry realms when he brought it into being. Under "Biology" we have four works;
under "Building Construction" 22; under "Chemistry" 22, including "Applied Bacteriology"; under "Civics" nine; under "Commerce" 52; under "Economics" 36; under "Education" seven; under "Electricity and Magnetism" 28; and also nine works on "Electrical Engineering," including "Alternating Currents in Theory and Practice." In view of the engineering dispute which shows the wisdom of the people who selected these books, I find we have for the benefit of the ordinary private soldier got 60 different works including books on the designing of steel bridges, on water purification, and on sewage disposal. Under the heading of "History," we have 73 different works including, as one would expect, some on the British Empire. We have also got Cicero and Euripedes, and all these are for men who do not possess the fourth standard certificate. We have other various forms of literature including "Rubaiyat of Omar," "Confession of an Opium Eater," "The Compleat Angler" and "Vanity Fair," and inasmuch as there may be a prospect of war in Greece we are supplied with Greek literature—14 different works, including "The Greek: Anthology" Sepulchral Epigrams and the New Testament in Greek. I cannot help referring to the wonderful science of mathematics. I find we have no fewer than 49 different works on mathematics, including volumes on the slide rule, "The Differential Calculus," and one wonders that the Lewis Carrols and that monumental work "The Evaluation of p" have not been included. Then, to crown it all, I find that for the ordinary Tommy Atkins we have, under the heading of "Naval Works," the text-book on "Theoretical Naval Architecture." In conclusion, I would remind hon. Members that it was the old army schoolmaster who produced the Army that fought at Mons. The main function of an army is to keep fit and to fight. Let us do away with all these educational fads. Let us leave educational faddists like the Noble Lord who evolved this scheme to stew in the starry realms of theoretical education, and let us get back to hard facts, and realise that the Army of yesterday and the Army of to-day never did, and never will, consist of Greek scholars and 'Varsity M.A.s. It was, and is, composed of matter-of-fact
working men. It is our duty to see that they are kept fit for service, and while we do that we can effect big economies in the way I have suggested.

Major-General Sir CECIL LOWTHER: I desire to associate myself with all that the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee). has said about the waste of money on education in the Army. I know a little about the present Army education scheme. It is more or less the illegitimate offspring of something I was partly responsible for during the War. We wanted at that time to help young soldiers in the Army, and we started all over the country a series of classes, mainly of the nature of technical training, in order to enable the lad who had broken his apprenticeship to carry on his work, and thus help young fellows who had a turn for any particular business to learn something about it. It was not an ambitious scheme. It cost the country nothing at all, because we got so much help from the local education authorities and from schools and private firms all over the country. I should say, by way of explanation, that I was in charge of the training of the Army at home during the latter part of the War, tinder the instructions of Lord French. As time went on, this scheme of technical education was taken up very much by the War Office and by the Army overseas, but I think it outgrew its strength. A large body of university men, journalists, and others, invaded the War Office, and our devoted heads were snowed under by Army Council Instructions, which were extremely long and very hard to understand; and we had a sort of hybrid university education foisted on to these young fellows in the Army who, as the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich has said, were lads who could just about get third-class certificates and no more. I have heard constant complaints from people in the Army about the amount of time and money that is wasted on Army education as it is at present, and it is my very firm conviction that, with the improvement of the general education scheme of the country, this special and very expensive education of a mobile body of troops in the country should be gradually given up, and the national education scheme allowed to do its proper work in the proper way, without our wasting the time of tired men by endeavouring to teach them things which
they really do not want to learn. I am an enthusiast for education in its proper place and at its proper time, but I think the education in the Army ought to be confined to enabling men to get their second and first-class certificates of education, and to continuing that trade and technical education which will be of material value to them in after life.
Earlier in the Debate the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took us for a journey in the clouds when he carried us into the realm of general disarmament. No one would welcome general disarmament more than I should, but we are dealing to-day with what is happening to-day, what will happen tomorrow, what our needs are, and what money we are able to pay. Let us hope for disarmament. If we get it, so much the better. Then we can scrap our armies and need no longer pay money for maintaining troops. Human nature will have so changed that we need not pay any further money for the keeping of police; we shall be able to leave our property on our front doorsteps without any danger from depredators. I think it is very general—I do not say in the House of Commons, but in the country—to assume that the Army Members of the House are opposed to reductions in the cost of armaments and in matters pertaining to the Army- That is not altogether a just charge. The military Members are just as kaen as any others on the making of proper economies. They are in favour of heavy reductions in military expenditure, but they are not in favour of reductions which will jeopardise the position of the Empire. Large naval reductions have already been assented to. The Navy, however, is still in a position to do its work. If the reductions in the Army are assented to, will the Army be in a position to do its work? I very much doubt it. I should like to remind the Committee that our Army never was organised for a great European war. The part which it was contemplated that our Army would play in any hostilities that might arise on the Continent was always a very modest one. In fact, some years ago—some time before the War—a distinguished French General, talking on the subject of British help in a war, said, "All that we want is that you should have one British soldier killed in France. That is all we want in the way
of help from you." He had his wish, and more than that, but what he meant was that all that they wanted was our moral support, the support of our Fleet; they did not really expect material support of the nature of that which we gave them.
Our Army was not organised for a European war. We fought the War with an Army specially organised ad hoc. That Army has gone now, and does not enter in any way into our present calculations. All that enters into our calculations is what we may call the police work of the Empire. I am not going to trouble the Committee with details about that, for they have been given already from better inspired sources than myself, but I should just like to describe the police work of the Empire. We have no thought of aggression whatever; our sole idea—and I speak for most of the Army Members of the House with whom I come in contact—is to maintain peace. But the temporary chaos induced by the War—I am not going to enter into questions of policy, or attacks on the Government or the late Government on the question of policy—the temporary chaos induced by the War has very much enhanced our dangers and our necessary commitments, which are very much greater than they were before the War. We soldiers have seen too much fighting during our lives to wish anyone to see any more. We want to avoid it, although some people seem to think we regard it as a pleasant pastime. That desire to avoid fighting, however, gives us what I consider to be a very legitimate apprehension, and makes us strongly oppose the reduction of our British fighting forces—I am speaking of the actual fighting troops—by some 28,000, or roughly 20 per cent. of what they were before the War. Our troops are fewer and our dangers are greater. Although I honestly believe that they are passing dangers, yet, until those passing dangers are over, we have no right to jeopardise our possessions in the Empire throughout the world.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to remind the Committee that those of us who belong to the Army Committee upstairs passed a Resolution to the effect that we regard with great dismay the disbandment of these battalions, and we think that these 10 Irish battalions represent the limit of reduction without
gravely endangering the safety of the Empire. Only this afternoon the Colonial Secretary, replying to a question with regard to Ireland, referred to the possibility of his drawing a cordon all round the boundary of Ulster. As the Army consists of one division—and a division is only 10,000 rifles—how far will that go along the 200 miles of the Ulster border? I agree with, the greater part of the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, and particularly with what he said as to the policy of the Government and our commitments. One of these is a source of tremendous danger to our Empire at the present moment. We are spending £3,000,000 for keeping troops in Constantinople, for antagonising the Turk for ever against us, when he and ourselves have been traditional friends in the past, for antagonising all the Mahommedans in India and adding further to our dangers at the present moment, and we have one division of 10,000 to 12,000 rifles. This comes at a moment when India is in a state of great unrest, and when, in March, the white European is feeling the sun growing stronger, the days and nights growing hotter, and his strength weakening, while the native rebel feels with the sun's rays that his strength is increasing and his opportunity is coming, as it came in the Mutiny, to make in the summer a desperate attack on us. This is not the moment at which to announce drastic reductions in our forces.
Will the Committee forgive me if, having attacked the reductions, I turn for a moment to a few details? All of my hon. Friends who have spoken before have agreed that we want to economise and to spend no more money than is necessary upon such troops as we consider we require. Looking through the Estimates presented to us, I notice that, while one soldier in the Army in 1914 cost £150 a year, a soldier nowadays costs £400 a year.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): indicated dissent.

Major BROWN: I have worked out the figures, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can prove that I am wrong. I think, however, that I can anticipate his answer. The right hon. Gentleman is deducting the £7,000,000 of terminal charges from his Estimates, and if that
be so it makes a difference, but I would ask him—

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And the non-effective Vote.

6.0 P.M.

Major BROWN: I would ask him, what happens to the £15,000,000 of Appropriations-in-Aid? Surely they, too, still represent money spent on the soldier, and so my figure remains the same. Then we are spending, in comparison, a similar amount of money, allowing for the change in money values, in the present year to that which we spent in 1914, namely, £52,000,000 now as against £27,000,000 then. I think it is a fair estimate that we are spending roughly the same amount in money value, and what are we getting? In 1914 we got six divisions ready within ten days; in 1922 we are getting one division in 15 days, another within six weeks, and perhaps two others later on. We are bound to ask, where have we lost those divisions, and for what are we paying all this money? I have been trying to discover where the money is going, and in digging out these matters I have discovered that our proportion of officers is one to every 14 men this year, while in 1914 it was one to every 17 men. That in itself, as the Geddes Committee points out, means an extra cost of £1,000,000 a year. On looking further into that matter, I discovered that this extra number of officers is probably caused by such corps as have to be heavily officered, such as the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Accountants, in which the proportions of officers to men are one to four and one to six respectively. It cannot be due to the fighting forces, where there is only one officer to every 30 men. That led me to go a little further. The Noble Lord mentioned the figure by which the fighting troops themselves are being reduced, namely, 28,000 men, but I do not think he gave the figure for the rest of the Army—the non-fighting troops. We have, as a matter of fact, a reduction of 18 per cent. in our fighting troops, but we have an increase in non-fighting troops of 8,302, or a percentage increase of 52½ per cent. You decrease your fighting troops by 18 per cent., and increase your non-fighting troops by 52½ per cent. I have tried to impress upon the Committee that it is fighting troops we want to look after, especially in times of need. Those are the men who cannot be replaced. Last year, in order to try to find out
what was in the mind of those at the head of the Army, I asked how many new corps had been formed since 1914. I found there had been six. Three of them—the Welsh Guards, Tanks, and Signals—were fighting corps. The other three were a corps of dentists, a corps of accountants, and an education corps. I am almost sorry to say this, but it seems to me that when you put six new corps on to an Army, three of which have no great fighting value and three of which have very great use in a political sense, for they afford great perorations on election platforms to show how well you are looking after the soldier, it seems to me you are not directing the whole administration in the way you should. If I may follow that up with the number of schools which have since been started I find there are 14, five of which have a connection with the fighting services and nine of which, as far as I know, have very little direct concern at all with fighting. They are, sanitation, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Royal Army Service Corps, a College of Pharmacy, two schools of training instructors for the educational corps, military administration and a central trade school for boys. I can find no very direct relation between fighting and these particular schools. I would remind the Committee again that with our dangers abroad, our dangers in Egypt, and perhaps our dangers near home, it is fighting men and fighting troops that we want to look after at present. There was in the year A.D. 9 a Roman Emperor who on his dying bed cried to one of his Generals, who had also been killed, "Varus, Varus, give me back my legions." I am afraid if the British nation this summer perhaps in India, or in the near future, makes that same request upon the Government, they cannot, at all events, like Varus, say, "I lost my men fighting." The representatives of the Government will have to say, "We squandered your money on semi-philanthropic enterprises in the Army, we have lost sight of first principles at the War Office, namely, the production of fighting troops and fighting men."

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I have only just returned from a visit to Iraq and India and am appalled at the
proposed reductions which are contained in this Vote. I have been wondering since I saw them whether hon. Members and Ministers are aware that we still have the British Empire, and that it will rapidly crumple up at our feet if the action of the Government which has been going on for the past three years is continued much longer. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the conditions in places like Iraq and India. In Iraq there is still considerable unrest. It is on the cards that there may be another rebellion this year. There is no certainty that it will not take place. The garrison in that country is being reduced until it will eventually consist of four battalions, of which three will probably be in Bagdad, and one in Basra. If there were any serious trouble, the Bagdad Garrison might be gravely endangered, and it might conceivably be necessary to despatch a large force from India to relieve it. This is only one possible, and even a probable, situation in which troops would be required. We all know the position of affairs in India. There are schemes now being prepared for the Indianisation of the native army, police and Civil Service, and to my mind this is not the moment to reduce the British forces in India. While the reforms are taking place, and during this process we ought rather to strengthen the British troops there and see that law and order are enforced. I am as much impressed with the necessity for economy as anyone, but there are ways of effecting economy. One way is to put your head down like a bull and go for it without using your brains at all, simply cutting out 24 battalions of infantry.
The other way is to use one's brains and to go in for some scientific method and study the whole problem very carefully in consideration of your commitments and responsibilities. Our commitments and responsibilities are greater and the clangers more insidious now than they were before the War, and yet we find these very large reductions being carried out. I have on many occasions drawn attention to a certain way in which one could carry out considerable economies—nearly every Member of the Government and a large number of hon. Members have agreed that it is necessary to do something in that direction—and that is in connection with the co-ordination of the fighting services. What
has the Government done? Absolutely nothing—nothing for three years since the War. They have not used the knowledge which has been gained to effect any economies in that direction, and so long as they do nothing in that way I shall most certainly go into the Division Lobby against the Government on every single reductions they put down. I did not wish to address the House at all, but I did not wish to vote against the Government on this occasion without expressing my views. It is an appalling thing that with the forces of unrest and lawlessness throughout the world and throughout the British Empire we should find, not only that the troops are being cut down, but that a policy of sabotage is being supported in every direction. I shall take every opportunity throughout the Session of voting against the Government whenever any reduction of British troops takes place beyond the 10 South Irish Battalions.

Major COLFOX: The Noble Lord a little while ago said it was an old saying that if you want peace you must prepare for war and that that saying has been proved false in the year 1914. Of course it has been proved false as far as Europe is concerned, but that is not quite the point, because everyone must realise that the British Army has never been organised having regard to the danger of a European war. The British Army exists to reinforce our troops in other parts of the Empire and generally for police duty within the Empire. It seems to me that the pith of the whole case for Army reduction was contained in one of the concluding sentences of the speech of the Secretary of State for War last Wednesday when he said:
The fact is that the Government have had to make a choice between a maximum of safety, which it is the business of the General Staff to advise upon, and the equilibrium between financial and military risks, which it is the duty of the Government to determine.
He suggests that the equilibrium between financial and military risks has been achieved in the proposal which the Government is offering to the House tonight, but I suggest that when he talks about financial risks he really means that the Government is considering the risk of losing votes, and the military risks are absolutely unspecified in his speech. He tells us—and we all agree of course—that the British Army was never organised
for a European war. He also said its size is going to be regulated by its overseas commitments and by the necessity of maintaining units at home so as to provide drafts and reliefs for the units abroad and to maintain order at home.
I should like to try to show something of what the military risks are and I should like to show, if I can, that the Army, as contemplated, is totally inadequate for our overseas commitments as they stand at present. In 1914 our Army was organised, as we are told it will be in the future, having regard to our overseas commitments, and it was then not more than large enough for our liabilities. We have been told repeatedly in the course of this Debate and in last Wednesday's Debate how much our liabilities have been increased since those days. We have garrisons in a number of places which we used not to garrison and also many of the places which were then on our hands are now in a much more dangerous state than they were then. But yet the Army is to be reduced. Even the active Army is to be reduced, in spite of the fact that our reserves available on mobilisation to-day are very much less than the available reserves in 1914. Apropos of that, in passing, one might be allowed to suggest that even if these-reductions are considered to be absolutely essential and cannot be avoided, why not enlist a large number of men direct into the Army Reserve. We have many men to-day who have war experience. Why not enlist them straight into the Army Reserve and so have something on which we can fall back I The Secretary of State admits that the General Staff have given him and the Government warning that the Army, as it is contemplated to be reduced, will not be adequate. I should like to quote a couple of sentences from what he said.
The Army may be called upon to reinforce the forces of the Crown in India should the native Army and the British troops there prove insufficient. The General Staff have pointed out that in certain eventualities reinforcements much in excess of our future establishment may be required.
What the General Staff has, in effect, said to the right hon. Gentleman is, that if a native rising were to occur in India, coupled with trouble on the Afghan frontier, and trouble in Ireland, we have no hope of reinforcing India sufficiently to cope with the trouble. What the General Staff have said is that this sort
of trouble is not only, possible, but extremely probable. There is ample evidence to show that the same forces are stirring up trouble in these and many other places. The Commander-in-Chief in India recently made a very significant speech.
Most hon. Members, and certainly most hon. and gallant Members will agree that we shall be faced in the very near future by concerted action on many fronts, and yet the Secretary of State for War says that the size of the Army is being regulated by our overseas commitments. I respectfully suggest that this is by no means the case. The size of the Army should be regulated, obviously, by the policy of the Government. So the Government has a choice between two lines of action, either it can fix a definite foreign policy and then arrange the strength of the Army to correspond, or it can submit to pressure from the electorate at home and fix the size of the Army which it considers it can afford to keep, and then arrange its foreign policy to correspond with that. It must do one or other of those two things, and I suggest that the first is the right course. At present, neither of these courses has been adopted. Both the strength of the Army and the foreign policy is being determined entirely independently one of the other. Surely it is better to face the facts as they are rather than the facts as they may be.
We must alter one of two things, either our military liabilities or the strength of our military forces as proposed in these Estimates. Every sane man admits that it is imperatively necessary that national spending should be reduced, and also that it is the duty of the Government to advise in what direction national spending can best be economised; but the Government have, in fact, told us that they mean to retain their spending at, more or less, the rate to which we have grown accustomed on certain services, incidentally the building of locomotives at Woolwich Arsenal, which they charge to the Army Vote, and they are going to make all their most necessary economies at the expense of the fighting forces. The Government admit that they are running enormous risks, but in order not to lose the votes of the more clamorous and less informed sections of the people, they are prepared to risk the safety of India and
the Empire. One is tempted to ask what profit will it be to us or the country if we do succeed in saving £20,000,000 of money this year and retain the votes of the National Union of School Teachers and other powerfully organised sections of the people, and at the same time incur the liability of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of millions next year or the year after, and even then very likely lose large portions of the Empire. The Government owe a duty to the nation bigger than that of retaining the nation's votes, and that is, truthfully to state the position and face the facts.
So far as one can make out, from what one presumes to have been the advice of the General Staff—of course, we have not first-hand information—the facts of the military situation are that in the event of trouble in the East and elsewhere—and that event is extremely probable—we have either to abandon the Indian Empire or spend vast sums of money to recover it. Surely it would have been1 better for the Government to tell the country the actual facts of the position, and then only make those economies in the fighting services—and they are many—as will not affect the fighting efficiency of the Army. Then they must look for the other necessary economies elsewhere, even at the expense of the votes of powerful sections of people at home. There is another possible course which they might pursue, but I do not recommend it. Yesterday, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) in a speech on the Air Force Vote said that in any future war all the combatants would lose. I have no doubt he is right.
His inference from that was that it was useless, and worse than useless, to make warlike preparations for European war. That is a perfectly reasonable atti-ture to adopt, and the only logical answer to it is, why have any Army at all? It is only reasonable, when one is considering the possibility of a European war. The Noble Lord has a much stronger and a much more vital faith than most of us, but even he will admit that his argument falls to the ground when considered in relation to preparations for reinforcing India and other parts of the Empire. In that case, there is no likelihood of a struggle on the lines of the recent European war, where the combatants were intellectually and scientifically equal.
Therefore I earnestly appeal to the Government, in the interests of what I conceive to be real economy, and in no sense as a preparation for another European war, but rather with regard to our Imperial liabilities, to make all possible reductions in the administration of the Army, but not to countenance the reduction of its fighting efficiency below the safety limit.

Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: Two years ago my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson) gave a grave warning to this House and to the nation, and that has been emphasised to-day by the speech of my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson), who has just come back from our Eastern Empire. It reminds me very much of the warning which was given by another gallant Field-Marshal, one of our greatest fighting soldiers, and the greatest patriot that it has ever been my fortune to know. I refer to the late Lord Roberts, who spent all the later years of his life going North, South, East and West, warning the country of the danger that was before us in regard to the possibility of war with Germany. It is interesting now to know in what way his warnings were received by His Majesty's Government of that day. They wore received in the same way that I suppose the warnings of the gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down will be received by the Government. A Cabinet Minister, Mr. Runciman, said:
I do not believe that war between England and Germany is inevitable. I believe a statement like that of Lord Roberts is not only deplorable, but pernicious and dangerous, and if in Germany it is resented, I would like the Germans to know that it is resented no less in England.
Another Member of the Government in the same year said:
Because a man is a very great General, lie need not be a very great statesman.
Lord Roberts proved himself not only a very great General, but a very great statesman as well. My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) said this afternoon that he thought he had made a very fair analysis of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend a few days ago. I think he did up to a point, and then it became extremely unfair. What Lord Roberts preached in the pre-War days my hon. and gallant Friend preaches to-day, and that is exactly what
the Noble Lord scoffs at, namely, that if you wish for peace you must prepare for war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] I am glad to hear cheers from the benches opposite, and I only hope that the hon. Member will support us in the Lobby, as he so strongly approves of our policy. The Noble Lord went on to twit my hon. and gallant Friend with the fact that, although we had six divisions before the War, that was not sufficient to stop the War. Of course it was not. Had Lord Roberts been listened to we should have had an Army that would have prevented the War, but Lord Roberts was not listened to, with the result that we only had six divisions, and that terrible War took place.
History repeats itself The other day, I do not know whether hon. Members read it, a very interesting article appeared in the Press, pointing out that after the Napoleonic Wars the position of this country was precisely the same as it is to-day, the whole country was howling for reduction in taxation, unemployment was rife, trade was bad, and the parallel even went further, for there was a demand £or a reduction in the numbers of the Army. In answer to the clamour, the Government in those days, as has been the case to-day, turned to the Army and reduced the Army to a very small number, with the result that in a very few years, as will be the case to-day, that Army had to be very largely increased in order to meet the dangers that came before the country. One word to the Secretary of State for War. He thought fit to announce the other day that we had only one division fit to go abroad. In view of the disturbed state of the world is it not simply asking for trouble to confess the existence of such a lamentable state of affairs?
It is worse than that. It is dangerous. Our weakness is more than dangerous. One of my hon. and gallant Friends said that 10 battalions had to be reduced, and that beyond that it was dangerous to go. I agree entirely. You can reduce 10 battalions, with their equivalent, if you like in artillery and ancillary troops. They must go automatically, but I do, even at this last moment, beg the Government to consider what they are gambling with. The hon. and gallant Member for Northern Dorset (Major Golf ox) has pointed out that the Government weighed military expenditure as against national
expenditure, and decided against the advice of the General Staff. The Geddes Committee have made many recommendations for cuts in other directions, which have been ignored. I believe that those recommendations have been ignored, because when they came to weigh up the political dangers versus the financial dangers, the Government came to the conclusion that the political risks were not good enough to take.
Nearly everyone in this House realises that it is impossible there should not be very large reductions, and we are prepared to face reductions provided that in our opinion none of these reductions endanger the safety of our Empire I would ask the Secretary of State what would be available now for spending on the Army if, for example, we gave up Constantinople, if we came out of Iraq and out of Silesia, in fact if we came out of that new Empire and went back to look after our old Empire, I will also ask him what he estimates, and this is an important point, will be the amount of the non-effective Vote which is incurred by these reductions? I am very sorry for my right hon. Friend, because I know that he realises the dangers that are in front of us, and also realises what may happen to him in the big position which he holds. But he is powerless. His Majesty's Government have instructed him and the General Staff to make these reductions, and he can but carry them out

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can go.

Sir S. SCOTT: I agree that my right hon. Friend can resign, I only wish that, on this particular point, he had resigned. Is it right to gamble with our Empire? Is it right to sit silent and acquiescent in this House while we see the Government gambling with our Empire sooner than gamble with votes?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir S. Scott) has covered the ground so well that I shall not detain the Committee at any great length, but there are a few points to which I wish to refer. I believe that there is not a single member of the Army or this Committee, or, indeed, anyone who is interested in this question, who will not agree that we have got to reduce
our national expenses enormously, and that every Service of the State has got to take its share of the reduction. We realise also not only that there are risks to be considered at the present time, but that the risks are of such a nature that the British Empire is involved by the action which it is proposed to take. I believe I am speaking for all those who have very strong feelings on this subject when I say that we believe we can still save the money, and save much more money by adopting a different policy, and that even within the Army itself there are better ways of economising than by scrapping your righting soldiers.
Therefore my purpose is to show, first of all, that our organised man power in military formation under these new cuts is far less than it was in our peace time defence establishments before the War, or that it had been for 100 years. Second, that the available mobilisable reserves are enormously decreased. Third, that our liabilities for the protection of the Empire are greater than they have ever been in our history. The Regular Army under the cut at present proposed would actually have 20,000 fewer serving soldiers than in the 1914 peace establishments. But the Militia, better known recently as the Special Reserve, of 70 battalions is non-existent at the present time. They numbered before the War 55,000 soldiers who, as the Committee knows, could be mobilised at the first possible danger. That force at present does not exist, but it was available for overseas and also for civil protection. Then the establishment of the Territorial Army has been reduced by 110,000, and the present strength of the Territorial Army is 60,000 short of establishment. If we take these totals with the actually organised and equipped men in the various forces of the Army at present, we have 210,000 fewer equipped men available in these forces than we had in our previous peace time Army. These outstanding facts were ignored by the five men of good will who came along with their axe and said, "Here is the Army, it is very expensive. It does not involve many Votes. We will make a tremendous chop at that." They ignored that fact, and they did not treat the country fairly by ignoring this extraordinary decrease in the fighting power of the organised manhood of the British Empire.
The Geddes Committee even went further in what I am sure was an innocent deception, but it was a complete deception, of the British public, when they made no mention whatever of the reserves of the Army. In 1913 we had 149,000 men in the reserves.? In 1914 we had 146,000. To-day we have 65,000 as members of the reserve of the British Army, and of that number I calculate that only some 17,000 are actual infantry soldiers, who could be mobilised in order to take the field in fighting units of infantry, if needed, at short notice. When therefore we consider our policy and our commitments, I would ask the Committee to face the fact that in fighting men equipped or mobilisable by telegram—that is the test—the grand total to-day is down by 280,000 as compared with 1914 peacetime establishments, and that it is false for the Geddes Committee to try to persuade the country to believe that in fighting men we have to-day, in personnel, a fighting value equal to that which we had before the War. In face of these reductions you have this restless world, and this volcanic Empire with 280,000 fewer men available to deal with a great crisis. I am sorry to see so few non-service Members here, because it is their interest which we desire to secure. When I remind you that the total expeditionary force is something like 112,000, the Committee will realise what the figures which I have given mean in terms of your whole Army.
Then there is another point. Lord Roberts, whose honoured name has been referred to, told us five years before the War that our Army of that day was only sufficient to protect the British Empire as it was then. Compare the Empire of 1914 with the Empire of to-day. In 1914 Egypt was quiet. India was peaceful. The Crown Colonies and Protectorates were all quiet; there was no trouble there at all. Ireland was free from crime and law-abiding, and was still a part of the British Empire under our control. To-day Egypt, we will all agree, could not possibly be denuded of troops, and this must be so for some time. India is seething with unrest from one end of the country to the other, having lost its pathetic political contentment, and in Ireland a section of the population, at any rate, appears to be bent on exploiting the generous gift of a Free State in the direction of civil war. On
these facts it must be recognised that the position of the Empire, compared with that which Lord Roberts referred to before the War, is dangerous. You have halved your available lighting men in the case of serious trouble. If that were the end of the story, even then we could sleep quietly in our beds at night, but, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) has told us, we have these colossal additional) burdens to our restless Empire—Iraq, Constantinople, Palestine, Silesia and the Rhine, and I am sorry to say, still, Ireland. The wisdom of the policy of the Government in scattering our forces from this attenuated army in affairs which have no permanent concern for the British Empire is a matter with which we cannot deal to-day. But if it is a question of deciding whether we are to cut down the fighting men of the Army or to jeopardise our financial position, I, for one, say: "For Heaven's sake let us come out of those places at once rather than run the risk of losing the Empire. Let us get back to the old frontiers of the Empire and round them off rather than have the claws of an Empire octopus streaching out with their vast communications to be threatened in distant parts where we have no permanent concern." With the countries and territories I have mentioned you have increased the military liabilities of the Empire by something like 50 per cent., you have stirred up the pathetic contentment of the Empire by probably 100 per cent., and you are decreasing the organised fighting men of the Empire by 50 per cent.
The Secretary of State admitted the other day that we were taking risks. There are many men in this House who do not regard it as a risk at all. It is not a gamble; it is a certainty. The right hon. Gentleman is withdrawing the insurance on a house when the cellars of' that house are flooded with petrol. We have all the inflammable material there. There are warnings from the greatest, soldiers in the Empire, and yet the Government is to cut down the number of our fighting men. In view of the situation, I suggest that he would be a brave man who would disband any of the fighting units. There is no one in this Committee who does not agree that the ten Irish battalions have to go, with their quota of artillery and cavalry and ancil-
lary forces, but in the existing circumstances of the Empire, unless we are told by the Secretary of State that he intends definitely to give up these commitments, we cannot agree that over and above those ten battalions further units should be destroyed. There may be some hon. Members here who are very anxious. Not knowing when a General Election may come, they may say, "I have pledged myself to economies in every direction." It would be a very proper question to ask, "How could you still decrease the expenditure of the country and at the same time preserve the fighting men, to whose disbandment you object?" I put it to the Committee that the effect of keeping 14 battalions, which I might call English battalions, with their complement of artillery and cavalry, would cost something like £3,000,000 sterling, or not more than £4,000,000.
How are you to raise that £3,000,000. I say, "Come out of Constantinople, and save £3,000,000 at once. Keep your fighting men and make friends with the Turks and by so doing you will immediately decrease enormously your dangers throughout the whole of the Eastern Empire." The Committee may say that that only just balances things. Then I say, "Come out of Mesopotamia and save £9,000,000, and come out of Palestine and save £3,000,000." There you have a further saving of £12,000,000. Against that you have still to house and clothe and maintain the soldiers coming out of those theatres; but I put it to the Secretary of State that that would cost him about £3,000,000 and there would therefore be a net saving of £9,000,000 in the British Army as a whole. Suppose that figure is not absolutely agreed to by the Secretary of State. I ask him to go further. Sooner than get rid of fighting men why not almost immediately, say, in June, cut down by 20 per cent. the pay of officers and men recruited from that date. I do not think you can break a contract. The Government might have said that every single man in the service of the State, from the Prime Minister down to the Tommy, is to have a 10 per cent. reduction in pay. I think you could have done that, but I am not sure you can do it now. Where there is no contract made you could cut down by 20 per cent. Very soon, say, in a couple of years, you would
save the £3,000,000 for the fighting troops.
There is the situation in India. I suppose there is not a soldier who does not admit that if you had a reasonably sized army in India you could walk right through the country with modern appliances. Suppose there is widespread unrest in India on the lines of the rebellion in Ireland, where 70,000 soldiers were unable to prevent disturbances. Suppose, also, that you cannot get more than one division to India in six weeks at the earliest, and no further divisions for five or six months. Surely you are running a risk with the small white population in India, and with the white women there in particular. Surely, it is not our duty to cut down our fighting men at this time. I regret the appalling lack of interest which has been taken in this Debate by Members of the Labour party and the Free Liberal party. It is an astonishing fact that though this is the greatest cut ever proposed in the Army, yet so little interest is shown in it. I am afraid I cannot appeal to them to support us. Theirs is a peculiar kind of creed. They revel in unpreparedness. If we dropped a Mills' bomb at their feet they would hope it was a cricket ball. If a Minenwerfer were thrown they would say that it was a football, I am sure. They are prepared to run any risks. But to those who have been associated with the old traditional Conservative party, to those Liberals who stood by their country so magnificently throughout the War I say, Is it wise or real statesmanship to agree with these cuts now I After all, who is the greatest expert in the British Empire? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson). Can we neglect the words he has told us? Can we neglect the words of the Army Committee, an important body which unanimously carried a resolution yesterday. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that not a single fighting man over and above the Southern Irish Regiments shall be disbanded from the Army until the Government have drawn in their horns and altered their policy, and until the Empire once more safe.

Major-General SEELY: There are many people like myself who are wondering very much in which way it is their duty to vote, if there be a vote on this ques-
tion. We shall listen with great care to what the Secretary of State says, because it clearly is the case that he has been compelled by reasons of economy to run things very fine. Having been responsible for three years of military affairs in this House—as Under-Secretary for one year and as Secretary of State for two years—I say that you cannot make reductions in expenditure of any size without reducing your fighting forces. I listened with interest to a speech in which an hon. Member pointed out that there were too many parsons in the Army and too many dentists. There may be too many parsons, but I have my doubts about the dentists who are very useful people in time of war. If you swept them all away, the experience of three years at the War Office has shown me conclusively that you do not make any really big reduction. I go further and say—I can say it impartially because while I was at the War Office, I regret to tell my economy friends, the Estimates continually increased and we were pressed to make reductions by people on both sides of the House, irrespective of party—you cannot make big reductions without reducing units. It is not possible. If the Secretary of State tells us that we shall be in danger of bankruptcy unless we make reductions of the size suggested I agree that we must reduce units.
I understand that an hon. and gallant Member opposite intends to plead on one small matter, as well as on a very big matter. He intends to plead for the retention of certain North of Ireland regiments. I think that is a sound plea, and I shall support him. I say to the Secretary of State that while I agree that if you are to make big reductions you must reduce units, I do not think it would be wise to go further than the proposed reduction of 20 battalions by taking away the third and fourth battalions from regiments which have four battalions. To destroy a county unit, whether in the North of Ireland or in England, would be so disastrous that I plead with my right hon. Friend to find some means of avoiding so great a disaster to our military system. We are faced with a terrible dilemma. We are running big risks, we are told on the highest authority, from the point of view of the safety of the Empire if we do not make these big financial economies. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he will not get
much support from the War Office, but he will have some support, and from very important quarters. Let him institute an inquiry forthwith as to whether he cannot get greater security for our possessions abroad if he goes again into the whole question of the Cardwell System. It would not be wise to go now into all the arguments. If you do not stick to your Car dwell System you automatically effect enormous economies. The drawback is that you have not got so large a reserve. The Secretary of State, no doubt, will tell us that we have an exceptionally large potential reserve of trained men, noncommissioned officers, and officers, but let him institute that inquiry and ascertain how far he can give us greater security in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Palestine, and in Ireland, by some other method of administering our military forces. On the whole, I await with anxiety what the Secretary of State has to say, but I cannot bring myself to believe that it will not be possible for him slightly to abate the reductions he proposes to make at least by saving some of these battalions, the destruction of which would blow the whole of our military system out of gear.

7.0 P.M.

Field-Marshal Sir HENRY WILSON: The ground has been so well covered by previous speakers that I will not take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took me to task for something that I said a few days ago. He said he thought it was now proved that to be ready for war was not a guarantee that there should be no war. He said that Europe was ready for war in 1914, and yet there was a war. I am afraid I am one of those who think that it was because Great Britain was not ready for war that there was a war. The Noble Lord also said that he gathered from my speech that it was in my mind, when I said that it was cheaper to prevent war than to win war, that it would be necessary to have 80 divisions, and therefore conscription. Nothing was further from my mind. It depends upon what war you wish to avoid how many troops you require. In olden days, with large Empires and large forces, you would require a large number of troops. In these days with small States—many of them, certainly—and with much smaller forces, although the totals are the same,
you can have your guarantees with much smaller forces. My mind was not really at that moment thinking of a great European war. It was thinking more of avoiding war inside the Empire, and if I may state two cases where a modicum of troops would have avoided war, I think I may be able to prove my case.
I will take the case of Iraq last summer year. Owing to the fact that we were in Iraq, and that we had not enough troops in Mesopotamia, we had at great expense to draft into Iraq two divisions from India. Had we had more troops in Iraq we never would have had to draft in any, or in any case anything like as many from India, I would take the other case, which is the case we had last summer at home. Had we more troops in England of our own—and I will try to show in a minute how we could easily have had them—we should not have been put to the enormous expense of calling out the whole of the Reserve in making an ad hoc army. If the policy of the Government takes no regard at all for the forces which it has at its disposal, we are quite certain to get into trouble. It is said that if we reduce by 22 or 24 battalions, five or nine cavalry regiments, 47 batteries of artillery, and a great number of Army Service Corps and other units, we will save some £16,000,000. That is so, but there is another way of reducing, of saving that money, which to my mind is much better, and that is—I have been advocating it ever since the Armistice—to come out of those places which do not belong to us, and to hold on to those places that do. The greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer that I ever read of was Mr. Micawber, and hon. Members will remember what he said, "Income £20, expenditure £19 19s. 6d., result—Happiness; income £20, expenditure £20 0s. 6d., result—Misery." It is the £20 0s. 6d. policy which the Government have pursued for the last few years. We can make economies, we can make large economies in the Army, but I think it is not only unwise, but very, very dangerous to make economies in the fighting troops. With the condition of the world such as it is, and supposing that His Majesty's Governmen decline absolutely—as they appear to be going to do—to change their policy, if they decline absolutely to come out of those places that do not belong to us, and to hold on to those places that do,
then to reduce the number of your fighting troops is, in my judgment, absolute madness. We are told that we must take risks. I confess that the profession to which I belong is never slow to take risks, but when, as the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) said just now, the risk amounts practically to a certainty, then a man must be mad to take such risk.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Although this Debate deals with economies, I have not noticed any vigorous support in the course of it from some of the hon. Members who have been returned to this House as "anti-wasters." I have to reply to a very serious Debate conducted in a serious spirit by hon. and gallant Members who are quite clearly disturbed at the extent of the risk they are asked to participate in, and who have earnestly put before the House their feelings—not unnatural feelings—in the matter. I make no complaint whatever of a single statement that has been made. I realise as well as they do how serious the question is that the House has to decide. I am going to ask hon. and gallant Gentlemen to allow me to pass over some of the relatively minor details which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I will try to deal, in passing, with some of them, but there are some which I will leave for a later reply if the Debate goes on.
Practically speaking, the case as put by all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken has been this: "First of all, you ought to make no reductions in your fighting forces. We agree that if you can make reductions in the general expenditure of the Army by curtailing ancillary or auxiliary services, or by pruning off extravagances, then you should make these reductions, and we will support you in them. But the moment you come to the fighting forces, except so far as relates to the 10 Southern Irish battalions, we object to any reduction, on the ground that the amount of strength you have is no greater than—indeed, is not great enough for—the needs of the Empire." I believe that is broadly the case that I have to endeavour to answer. Let me first deal with the question of administration expenses, which it is claimed have not been properly reduced in these new Estimates. I do not want, of course, to repeat what I said on the first occasion on which these Estimates were before the Committee, but I took
some trouble to go with some detail into the various administrative Services which were being cut down in order to effect economy. It is perfectly true that cutting down a minor administrative Service by even 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. brings out very little economy in money compared with the millions we have to save. It is not so small that we are not trying to do it. Far from it, because if we can get £10,000 anywhere without damaging the fighting forces, I will get it. It is not that it is too small, but that it is a fact that if you knock off 20 per cent. you do not save £20,000 or £30,000, while if you are going to try to save when you come to millions, it is no use blinking the fact that it means a cut in the fighting forces.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam), who is a new recruit to the Committee, which I am sure will welcome him not only for his own sake but for his most excellent maiden effort this afternoon, told us that there were more chaplains than before the War, and he wanted to know why that should be so. The troops are at this moment much more scattered than they ever were in 1914. We have chaplains in every place where troops are stationed, and where units or parts of units are left at depots of home stations chaplains are there also. The distribution of troops abroad does account for the additional number of chaplains. As a matter of fact, there is a Committee now sitting, and I believe as a result of their inquiries into chaplains we shall cut down to pre-War numbers. The same hon. Member referred to the Veterinary Service, and said, again, that there are more veterinary officers now than before the War. That is perfectly true. The two general reasons of that are that the boarding-out scheme for horses of the Territorial Army is quite considerably expensive in veterinary personnel. This Estimate provides that that goes by the board, and the personnel of the Veterinary Corps connected with it will be retrenched. The second main cause is that there are more theatres of war in which their services are required.
Again, the hon. Member dealt with the pay and accounts branch of the War Office, and with the Accountants Corps. He hardly did justice to us in his remarks in that connection, because he failed to realise that these Estimates provide for a reduction of £800,000—not a bad slice
from one administrative Service—bringing the Estimate down from £1,900,000 to £1,100,000. As I pointed out when the Estimate was last before us, I am not satisfied with that. I am having an inquiry made into it now, and I promise the Committee that it is not a class on which I intend to have money spent that can be saved in any way. One other criticism which he made was with regard to the number of officers. He pointed out that there are 600 more officers now than before the War. There have been four officers added to each infantry battalion and one to each battery of artillery, and, broadly speaking, that accounts for the bulk of the increase in officers. That has been done as a definite and deliberate part of policy, and I believe rightly done. It is much harder to train an officer, and it takes much longer to train an officer, than it does to train men, and if the expansion of the Army at any time, or in any emergency, was required, it would be necessary to have additional officers. In addition to that, there is another reason. A good many of the units are being mechanicalised and the reduction in the numbers of men is considerable, and so you have got from this cause several cases of increased numbers of officers. I do not think myself there is any substantial economy to be got in that direction.
The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee) made a most amusing speech about the books in some library. These books, I understand, are probably part of the large number of books with which the public supplied the Army during the War. There was a collection of every sort, and after the War these were distributed among various units, and I do not think any public funds have been used in connection with that miscellaneous collection. I am not quite certain on that point, because they may also include some books which are intended not merely for the men, but also for officers and non-commissioned officers in connection with their higher education. From the list given by the hon. and gallant Member I am not sure I can identify the class to which they 'belong. Then the hon. and gallant Member talked about the educational scheme, and said a great deal of money was being wasted in that respect. As I explained to the House the other day, we are about to reduce the Educational Corps by 166 officers and 180
other ranks. I am going to go into that still further, because here, again, if there is money to be saved without doing injury to the fighting forces, I am out to save that money. On the other hand, I do not want to destroy vocational training in the Army. I feel certain, from what I have heard, that it is good for the men that in the last few months of their military career they should be given vocational training which will help them to reasonable employment on their leaving military life. If they get that, they will be more ready to come into the Army, and it would be a bad thing, in my judgment, if the Educational Corps were reduced to an extent which would hurt this scheme.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Major Brown) pointed out that there have been six new corps established since the War, three of these, according to him, having military value, and three being without military value. He pointed to the case of the dentists. The Dentists Corps is a new corps and a very small corps. I do not know whether the men's teeth have become very much worse since the War, but it is quite clearly an advantage to the Army when they have a recruit on their hands, to have his teeth looked to and his health maintained. We have found that corps to be of real value, and to make its existence a ground of complaint, unless in itself it is extravagantly run, is not in my judgment fair criticism. If it is extravagantly run, that is another matter. The hon. and gallant Member also talked about the Corps of Accountants and seemed to suggest that this corps is there because it provides a good peroration for election speeches on the platform. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member's experience of electioneering has been, but I cannot conceive myself making any appeal to the electors by describing the work of the Corps of Military Accountants.
There was one criticism made by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend) to which I should like to refer. He suggested that the Cardwell system should be looked into again, with a view to providing an Army of long service rather than an Army of short service. This question of a long service Army has been gone into over and over again. There was an inquiry in 1907. Hitherto it has been found to be of no
advantage and the matter has been gone into thoroughly. I do not wish to argue it in detail, but I would point out that under such a system there would be practically no expeditionary force; there would be no supply of reinforcements abroad in a very short time; and there would be, I believe, considerable difficulty in getting recruits for a service which was entirely foreign, and long foreign service at that.
I propose to deal next with two matters about which I hope the House will be glad to hear what I have to say. I am going to deal first with a question which was raised about the Irish battalions. The scheme which I put before the House the other day called for a reduction of 24 battalions. I pointed out how I was going to get 22 of those battalions, and I was in a difficulty with regard to the other two. I realise as well as anyone that while it is inevitable, in my judgment, to disband the 10 Southern Irish battalions and, if the cut is to take place, to disband also the 3rd and 4th battalions of the English regiments, yet to get these last two battalions would mean either cutting into the English county system or a reduction of the Ulster battalions below four. I have had the figures in my Estimate very carefully gone over, and I find that by squeezing here and squeezing there, and making some other economies, I am not bound, for this year at any rate, to go above the 22 battalions. That is to say, the two battalions which I think I mentioned the other day need not be disbanded for this year at any rate.

Captain CRAIG: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is not going to disband any of the battalions of what we call the three Ulster regiments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. What I said was that I could not do six battalions, but I can do four. I can leave four, but I cannot leave six. The plan of 24 battalions would have meant leaving two only. But if only 22 are disbanded, then that plan leaves two more battalions, or four altogether, which can be represented by Ulster battalions. That will have this effect. No regiment except the Southern Irish regiments will be destroyed. It is quite true that four-battalion regiments will be reduced to two battalions, but they can expand again
should it ever be necessary. At any rate, the regiment is there, and the regiment is safe, and so of the real North Irish and the English regiments, no regiment will be destroyed.
With regard to cavalry, I have been very anxious, if it were at all possible, to find some method of being able to say the same thing, namely, that no cavalry regiment would be destroyed. I think now I can announce a plan whereby even the four regiments which were disbanded last year, can come back again as one squadron units to represent the old regiments. This is the method which it is proposed to follow. Take the Life Guards first. The 1st Life Guards will become two squadrons and headquarters and the 2nd Life Guards will become two squadrons, and these four squadrons will be amalgamated in one regiment—the Life Guards. Practically the same plan will be adopted in regard to the cavalry line regiments. If I take the Dragoon Guards and the Dragoons as an example, the Committee will see what I mean. The four seniors, namely, the Royals, the Greys, the King's Dragoon Guards, and the Queen's Bays, will remain exactly as they are, untouched. As regards the remaining six regiments, the three seniors will become two-squadron regiments, and the three juniors will become one-squadron regiments. One of the seniors and one of the juniors will be amalgamated, and will become a three-squadron regiment, first and second squadrons of which will have been derived from the senior regiment, and the third squadron of which will have been derived from the junior regiment. In that way we propose to avoid altogether destroying these regiments. I do not pretend to suggest that this proposal is likely to be palatable, but I think it is better than disbanding the regiments altogether. It does give the regiments a chance to expand if at any future time it may be necessary to do so.
Let me deal with the main point made, that in view of our responsibilities no more reduction of the Army should be made, other than the disbanding of the 10 Southern Irish batallions.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: And their complements of artillery and cavalry.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And their complements of artillery and cavalry. No hon. and gallant Gentle-
man, speaking to-day, has indicated what that would mean in money. It would mean, possibly, £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 added to the Estimates as they are now presented. It would mean not only the additional battalions themselves, but, of course, artillery and cavalry, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, and, as well, Royal Engineers and all auxiliary and ancillary services. That would mean something like £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, at any rate, added to the Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what then is the cost of an infantry battalion? Does it exceed £150,000?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, £150,000 for an infantry battalion is a very fair figure. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is not very easy to say the exact cost. It depends on how much of headquarter charges and overhead charges you are going to attribute to a particular unit. By abolishing a unit, you save a corresponding amount in overhead charges. As a round figure, the figure he has mentioned is fair. Let me refer to some of the statements made in support of the suggestion that our responsibilities are such that we can make no further reduction in the Army. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Major Colfox) said what we were really doing was, proposing to abandon the Indian Empire and then to spend large sums in recovering it. Surely, that is a grotesque exaggeration of the position with regard to India. I think it would probably be unwise to examine in detail the position with regard to India, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that for internal order purposes you do not have to consider India in terms of Expeditionary Force conditions. It is quite conceivable that in certain circumstances you might have to reinforce the white troops in India. It is possible, but I do not say it is likely, and if you did want to reinforce them you would not require an Expeditionary Force division, with infantry, artillery, and so forth. You might want extra infantry battalions, and they are there, and they could be sent, and there would be no difficulty in sending them. Conceivably, you might want some extra artillery, and it is there and could be sent, and there would be no delay or difficulty in sending it, but,
surely, it is the grossest exaggeration to say that this policy is a policy of abandoning the Indian Empire.

Sir J. D. REES: That does not imply, does it, any departure from the relative standard of Indian and European troops which was settled after the Mutiny?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does not imply any alteration from any standard which exists now. It implies simply this. I am challenged that there are not troops to reinforce India, that in the event of disorder we should have to abandon India and at some later date reconquer it. I say that that is a gross exaggeration. There are troops here, if they should be needed, to reinforce India in case of internal trouble.

Major COLFOX: Do we gather that the General Staff has expressed the opinion which has just been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I think it would be unfair and improper that I should quote the General Staff. It would be very easy for me to do it, but they are not here, they are not capable of speaking for themselves, and I take full responsibility for that statement, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at it he will see it is a mere statement that any man of reasonable common sense would be able to make with a fair certainty that he was right. Now look at India from the external point of view. There has been a tendency to compare our to-day's strength and our to-day's position with our strength before the War and with our position in India before the War. What was the position with regard to India before the War? There was a real Russian menace, active, which we always had at the back of our minds, and which undoubtedly influenced the number of troops in India.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Not after the Russo-Japanese War.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At any rate to-day that Russian menace has gone. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO, no."] It has gone to-day. I do not say that it will not arise. I am not a prophet, and I do not want to belittle the position. I have been very frank with the Committee, and some hon. Members think I have been too frank, but I do not want
to belittle the danger that may arise. I want to look at what there is to-day, and again, if you look at the position with regard to Afghanistan, it is better than it was. There is a Treaty with Afghanistan which I hope may be carried out on both sides in such a way that our friendship will continue and any menace from that quarter will be removed.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget that it took 340,000 men to quell the last Afghan invasion in 1919, and that may occur again?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with possible things that may occur fairly and frankly, but I want to run through some of those difficulties which have, obviously, impressed hon. and gallant Friends of mine, and I think it is only fair that they should hear what my view is upon the subject. In Egypt we are, I hope, in the presence of a settlement, or approaching a settlement, which will relieve a great anxiety and which will make the relations between the Egyptians and ourselves more friendly. That is an asset to us, a better position which has arisen relatively recently, and it is quite conceivable—indeed, there are indications already—that the garrison there, or the troops kept there, may be able to be reduced. I do not propose to deal with Iraq or Palestine, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies dealt with them so recently, but let me say a word about Constantinople. It is suggested that we should come out of Constantinople, and that by so doing large sums might be saved which could go to the Army in lieu of some of these present reductions. Why are we in Constantinople, what are we doing there, and when are we coming out, are the kind of questions that have been put to me. My hon. and gallant Friends know very well that at this moment a Conference is sitting in Paris—I think it is actually sitting to-day or to-morrow—at which the Allies are represented, we being represented by our Foreign Secretary, and there an endeavour is being made to come to terms which will be accepted by the Greeks and the Turks, in order to bring to a close their war. As soon as that agreement is made, I hope that it will be possible for the troops to come away from
Constantinople. We are not there in an aggressive spirit. We are not there in order to spend money, but we are there because we believe it is one of the obligations of the peace that we should take our share there. As soon as ever we can get out, however, that is our intention and that is our desire. As to the suggestion that any large sum of money can be saved by getting out at once, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who said that must have forgotten that these troops have got to be paid, fed, clothed, and housed wherever they arc, unless, indeed, it is intended to disband them on their return home, and, of course, it is not the intention to disband them, because it was to bring them home in order to save the money to keep them that the suggestion was made. The additional cost of keeping troops in Constantinople or Silesia over keeping them at home is relatively small. There is an additional cost, but it is relatively small; it is very little.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: What is the figure?

Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: I can tell the Silesian figure, and I will try and give my hon. and gallant Friend an estimate of the actual figure for Constantinople in the course of the evening.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: What is the cost of the staff in Constantinople?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I can find out.

Sir H. WILSON: Is it not true that in Constantinople there are two British battalions and four native battalions, and is it not true that if we came out, the four native battalions would be disbanded?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure whether it was in my hon. and gallant Friend's time, or whether it was later that a decision was arrived at to relieve the four Indian battalions there by three British battalions, and the three British battalions are going to take the place of the four Indian battalions, with the result that there will be a decrease of the cost in Constantinople, and it has been done for that purpose, because these British battalions have got to be paid, fed, clothed, and housed wherever they are, and putting them in Constantinople will relieve four Indian battalions and so save a good deal of expense.

Sir H. WILSON: What is the figure?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know what the cost on Silesia and the Rhine is, but I have not in my mind at the present moment the cost in Constantinople. For Silesia and the Rhine the total cost is £2,500,000, and of that £1,000,000 is paid by the Germans in marks, and the other £1,500,000 is paid and is now going to be appropriated for the first time to Army Votes. I explained the other day that for the first time we shall have got an Appropriation-in-Aid of £1,500,000, and that is the balance of the cost of Silesian troops and Rhine troops, which are paid for by the Germans.

Lord R. CECIL: Is that the extra cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not quite sure, but I think it is the total cost. It is eight battalions, and therefore I think it must be the total cost. The whole Committee has been impressed by the speech the other day of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson). He pointed out that with all the liabilities abroad we were reducing our Army below the pre-War strength. In making that comparison, however, he forgot to mention the Air Force. The Air Force is now an additional force, and if you take the numbers of the Army and the Air Force, you will find that the actual numbers are not reduced below pre-War strength.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Including Reserve and Militia?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was obviously talking about the actual men with the Colours. I told the House the other day that the Reserve is 65,000 men, and the Militia does not at present exist, but these Estimates include a sum for starting the Militia, more especially in key men who are necessary for the striking force, and those are included in the Estimate. My hon. and gallant Friend put it to the House that we were weaker, that we had an Army which answered no war purpose before the War, that it was dependent on voluntary recruiting, that if the recruits came in there might be a bigger Army, but if the recruits did not come in, there might be a smaller Army, quite regardless of the purposes for which it was wanted,
and quite irrespective of the policy that was being pursued or the liabilities which were being incurred. Of course, that is true, but in order to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's point, it means that you have to abandon the Voluntary system altogether; it means that in order to match your instrument with your policy you have got to have the power to call men into the Army; and it means that you have got to adopt some form of compulsory service.

Sir H. WILSON: Could you not do the opposite, and adopt your policy to your force?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that will not avail my hon. and gallant Friend. It is quite possible that you might not get an actual equilibrium, because your policy does not depend upon yourself. No nation's policy depends entirely upon itself. It may depend upon Allies, or it may depend in part upon potential enemies, and so it is quite impossible actually, and it never has been done at any time, that the Army matched the policy or that the policy matched the Army. That, however, was not the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was making the other day. What he was saying the other day was that owing to the voluntary Army we might get an inrush of troops, or we might not get them, because it was voluntary, and what he was claiming was not a voluntary Army, but a conscript Army; and I do not wonder, because he was putting before the House the absolute inadequacy of the pre-War Army of six divisions. He said the position now was worse than it was, that there were more risks everywhere than there were before the War, and that the six or seven division Army before the War was not sufficient then, and, therefore, it could not be sufficient for the greater risks today. He did not say how many divisions he thought were safe. Did he mean 10 or 12? Because the Committee must bear this in mind, that it does mean the abandonment of the voluntary system if you are going to maintain anything like that number of divisions.

Sir H. WILSON: I never dreamt of a conscript Army, for the very simple reason that you cannot order conscripts to serve abroad in time of peace. As our Army in time of peace is a police Army,
a conscript Army would be of no use to us.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That, of course, I realise, but when the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal says that he did not contemplate a conscript Army, he was pointing out the weakness of the voluntary system, and the only cure for that weakness is a conscript Army. It is the only cure for the weakness he was pointing out, and, as we stand to-day, we have had more recruits this last year than we ever had before the War. [An HON. MBMBBER: "Bad trade!"] No doubt it is partly that, but even now we are 15,000 men short of the Establishment, and you would be face to face with a problem of the first magnitude if you attempted to shape your Army to-day upon a basis which the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal would consider equal to the risks that we have got to run. You would be faced with these two problems You would not be able to get recruits on voluntary basis, except, perhaps, on conditions much enhanced over the pre sent terms of pay and benefits, or upon a conscript basis. It is not possible for any nation exactly to fit its policy to a voluntary Army. It is quite true that you must, in shaping your policy, see what instruments you have got, and what force you have behind those instruments to carry it out. That is perfectly true, but to suggest that you can ever get an equilibrium between policy and Army is really not a practical thing. It never has been so. The British Empire was not built that way. It was built by taking certain risks in many directions, and, unfortunately, to-day we are actually faced with a position in which we are bound to take risks. We can economise those risks by policy, and I am certain I am right in saying the Government is doing, and will do, that. What the Committee has to ask itself is this. Which is the greater risk? Which is going to put us in the best position in case of some sudden emergency? Are we going to be in a better position with our finances destroyed, our powers of recuperation fatally injured; or are we going to be in a better position with every single regiment of infantry still in existence, with a power to expand, if necessary, and now with every cavalry regiment—also on a very small basis, it is true—

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Hear, hear!

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I admit that; I am not hiding the fact. Why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman jeer?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman is not saving, I understand, a single cavalry soldier of the British Army.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has got a point, and I thought he had none. I am not destroying a single regiment of infantry or a

single regiment of cavalry. Should it be necessary at any time to expand, the Army is there to expand, and I suggest that it is better to expand in an atmosphere of financial strength, rather than to expand in the consequences of an over-expenditure, whether it be upon the Army, Navy, or any other Force.

Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 214,995, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 54 Noes, 243.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempsteau,
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Nail, Major Joseph


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Ednam, Viscount
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Pennefather, De Fonbianque


Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Glyn, Major Ralph
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Gretton, Colonel John
Remnant, Sir James


Blair, Sir Reginald
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kidd, James
Wolmer, Viscount


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.



Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Maddocks, Henry
Sir S. Scott and Field Marshal Sir




Henry Wilson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Armltage, Robert
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Atkey, A. R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Dalzlei, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hallwood, Augustine


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hancock, John George


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)
Hartshorn, Vernon


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Haslam, Lewis


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hayward, Evan


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hinds, John


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Evans, Ernest
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Breese, Major Charles E.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Holmes, J. Stanley


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Fildes, Henry
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bruton, Sir James
Finney, Samuel
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Howard, Major S. G.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hudson, R. M.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cairns, John
Forrest, Walter
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Fraser. Major Sir Keith
Irving, Dan


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Galbraith, Samuel
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Carr, W. Theodore
Gardiner, James
Jameson, John Gordon


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jesson, C.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Gilbert, James Daniel
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gillis, William
Johnstone, Joseph


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Churcill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianeily)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Sutherland, Sir William


Kenyon, Barnet
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sutton, John Edward


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pratt, John William
Taylor, J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Preston, Sir W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Purchase, H. G.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Rae, H. Norman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lloyd, George Butler
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lcrt-Williams, J.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Tillett, Benjamin


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Turton, Edmund


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Rendall, Athelstan
Waddington, R.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Renwick, Sir George
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rodger, A. K.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Manville, Edward
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel E.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Middlebrook, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Mills, John Edmund
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wignall, James


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Murchison, C. K.
Seddon, J. A.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Myers, Thomas
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Neal, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sitch, Charles H.
Windsor, Viscount


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Winterton, Earl


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wise, Frederick


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Spencer, George A.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Starkey, Captain John Ralph
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Parker, James
Steel, Major S. Strang
Younger, Sir George


Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Stevens, Marshall



Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stewart, Gershom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Perkins, Walter Frank
Sugden, W. H.
Dudley Ward.


Original Question put, and agreed to

VOTE ON ACCOUNT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for defraying the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, namely:—

Heads of Cost.
Amount required.


—
—



£


Head I.—Maintenance of Standing Army
15,500,000


Head II.—Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
2,500,000


Head III.—Educational, etc., Establishments and Working Expenses of Hospitals, Depôts, etc.
2,750,000


Head IV.—War Office, Staff of Commands etc.
500,000


Head V.—Capital Accounts
750,000


Head VI.—Terminal and Miscellaneous Charges, etc.
4,000,000


Head VII.—Half-pay, Retired pay, Pensions, etc.
2,000,000


To be voted
28,000,000"

Captain C. CRAIG: I desire to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War as to the statement he made in his speech just before the Division. I understood him to say in reference to the Ulster regiments, which are supposed to be involved in the reductions to be made in the Army, that of the six battalions making up the three regiments in question, four battalions would be retained. Did I hear aright? Secondly, can he give the House any information as to how these four battalions are to be distributed between the three existing regiments? May I point out to the Committee that there are three regiments, the Royal Ulster Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, and we understood as a result of the negotiations with the War Office that at least a part of a battalion of the Royal Ulster Rifles, and a battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers would be retained, but we were left in doubt as to what would be the fate of the Royal Irish Fusiliers. I want particularly to know what is going to be the fate of the Royal Irish Fusiliers? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to retain four battalions out of the six
composing these three regiments, and will he be able to retain at least one battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers? That regiment, I need hardly point out to military Members of the House, is one of the most distinguished regiments in His Majesty's Service. One has only to look at the Army List to see that its list of battle honours is second to none in the British Army. It has served King and Country for 200 years in a way which no regiment need be ashamed. I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to re-assure the officers and men of that regiment, who are anxiously awaiting to know what their fate is to be, that at least one battalion of the regiment will be retained in the Service.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend was right in thinking that four out of the six battalions are to be retained, at any rate for this year, and as the Estimates are for one year that is all I can say. Whether the Irish Fusiliers should have one battalion left, in which case it will be necessary for the Inniskillings to lose one of their own battalions, or whether some other combination should be made so as to produce the four battalions out of the three regiments, I am not in a position at this moment definitely to say; and for this reason: that I am going to confer with those connected with the regiments, and I hope that the final arrangements I make will be done by agreement. It is better to at least retain one battalion of two regiments than to have a regiment having two battalions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000.
I do not want to follow the right hon. Gentleman and comment on what he has just said, except to say that I quite agree with the policy that the War Office has announced of trying to keep the traditions of the regiments enshrined in their names, and to keep up the esprit de corps, which everyone knows is fundamental; I fully agree that the identity of these regiments should be preserved. Up till about eight o'clock to-night what I may call the military party in this House had a very fine innings. They complain that the Army is too small and too weak, that the Empire is going to be lost, and all the rest of it. I must say that the
Unionist party showed up very much better than its traditional policy suggests on the Army Debates than on the Naval Debates. It may not be apparent in my proposed reductions of £1,000,000 that much good will be done, and it may be thought that it is very small, but if the proposals I suggest are carried out we shall, without any loss of security in relation to our legitimate interests or our own home, achieve something fairly considerable. I am going to content myself with £1,000,000, and if the House will support me at any rate will be something done.
The reason I am moving this reduction is that we cannot afford to spend £28,000,000 a year on the Army. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Every hon. Member is getting resolutions from all over the country, from trade societies and association, and so on, saying that they cannot endure the present scale of taxation, and that it is ruining industry. The poor man has to pay this out of his loaves, his sugar, his tea, his beer, and then there is the Income Tax. My hon. Friend near mo (Dr. Murray) points out that the amount is not £28,000,000 but £62,000,000, and I am obliged to him for it. The Government, as I say, is contemplating reductions in educational services and health services, and it is perfectly iniquitous for them to come to this House and ask for £62,000,000 for the armed forces.
These reductions can be made, but how? They can only be made by a change of policy. I do not want to go into policy at length, but I must touch upon it, because it is policy which controls the land armaments. The case of the Navy is somewhat different. There are our sea communications and our commitments overseas, and we must always have certain naval forces, but our land forces are absolutely dependent upon policy. We must have a sufficient force for keeping internal order in the country and supporting the civil power, and we must have certain garrisons abroad. Outside those comparatively small forces, the rest of the Army depends entirely upon policy. Our present expeditionary force is quite insufficient to be used on the Continent of Europe, and therefore, presumably, it is to be supported in the future by naval force and the latent strength and resources which our Empire contains.
First of all, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Cabinet he should urge in season and out of season and on every possible occasion a change of policy in regard to the Army of Occupation in enemy countries? In respect to the Rhine Army we have had some admirable articles in the "Times" lately which describe some of the conditions there, and these give, I think, a very fair picture judging from what I myself have observed of our Armies. Our troops in the occupied territory are popular with the local inhabitants. The English soldier is generally so. There is a great contrast between the behaviour of our Armies and certain others. I have seen at close quarters the very fine regiments that were sent to Silesia. They were Highland regiments, and apparently they were sent out there because it was thought to be a mountainous country, because the name is, in German, Ober-Schlesien, or "Higher Silesia"! The real fighting troops in the Rhine gave a splendid impression. They are, as I say, very popular with the local people, but—and I say this with great diffidence, though I know I will carry with me military opinion—that service in these Armies of Occupation is bad for the troops. They are not doing real soldiering. They are accommodated in billets, and they find themselves, owing to the rate of exchange, very well off indeed. The English private soldier gets as much pay as a German Cabinet Minister to-day. When they come back to leaner days at home, or are ordered off to India, or some other part of our legitimate Empire, they get discontented with the change.
Another thing which may be a minor matter, but which certainly is not unimportant. Our soldiers are marrying the girls of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, it may be very well in the cause of peace, but in view of the surplus of women and girls in our own country it is a serious matter. I know it means better relations with the country. Our soldiers are treated very nicely, and finally they come back with German wives. That is not good. It is not as if the parties met naturally and in the course of travel. They have only married because they happened to be stationed in the country. These armies of occupation
are not being paid for and they are a direct loss to the Treasury. The payments made so far, including the 31,000,000 gold marks we receive for ten days, the ships, the coal, the dyes and everything we have received, do not anything like pay for the Army of Occupation. Now that the Americans have asked for £50,000,000 for their Army of Occupation there is no chance of the other armies being paid for many a long year. I think that is a serious reason why our Army-should be withdrawn. The reparations are not going to relieve home burdens or provide compensation for the people who have sustained damage in the War, and that is another reason why the Army of Occupation should be withdrawn.
There is an additional reason why the Army in Silesia should be withdrawn. There will be perpetual intrigue and a stirring up of trouble while there is an Allied force there for obvious reasons. Apart from financial and military reasons, these isolated troops should be withdrawn for purely political reasons. I have visited that country myself, and I am in close touch with people there, and everyone will agree that there is no chance of the award of the League of Nations in Upper Silesia working until the Allied troops have been removed. In addition to that there is the constant irritation of having an Army of Occupation, however well behaved, planted in your country. The object of statesmanship after a war should have been to have healed the wounds and get rid of irritation. What I have suggested would be a great economy, and I think British policy should be directed to that end. The Armies of Occupation in Northern Europe ought to have been withdrawn.
My second economy would be the removal of the garrison from Constantinople. This is a subject which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), and both of them agree that this occupation is unproductive, and it is only a sign of the vacillating and unsuccessful and, I am afraid, altogether objectionable policy pursued by our Government. That would be a great saving and it would strengthen our general military position. This matter has been so threshed out that I need not go into it again. We have no business to have this great force with its barracks
and special transport arrangements garrisoning Iraq. I will not go into the policy because it would take too long, and it is certainly well understood in the country. We have no business there at all. If we cannot afford to clear our slums in London and Glasgow, which are the worst in Europe, if we cannot afford to build houses for the men who fought and won the War, or give a decent education and a University opportunity to our young people, if we have to cut down the milk supply to nursing mothers, it is ridiculous to ask us to vote £62,000,000, part of which is spent in keeping up a useless garrison in a part of the country where we ought not to be at all.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to Iraq, but that is in the Colonial Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know it has been transferred. We are not going to have another war for ten years, at least that is what we have been told. I admit that we need a certain force in this country. We have a certain garrison abroad which has to be kept up, but if we could put down our commitments on the Rhine, in Upper Silesia, and in Constantinople, we could save many millions of pounds which would help to bring peace and contentment to a sorely tried world, and we should also be able, through better trade and increased revenue, to afford money for many other things. I think we should be lacking in our duty on the Opposition Benches if we did not make a protest against this expenditure of £62,000,000 on the Army three-and-a-half years after the Armistice. I am sorry that I have to make these protests. The fact remains that we cannot afford this money. It is expenditure on a mistaken policy, and our only way, apparently, of doing anything to prevent it is to vote against the Government. It is with that object that I move this reduction of £1,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: I only rise in consequence of what was said by the Secretary for War in the concluding part of his speech. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who alluded to the speech made last week by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) with regard to what is necessary to guard us in the event of a European war. I think
it necessary to make these observations because there may be some misconception in the Committee and in the country in reference to this matter. Those of us who acted and voted with the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, and opposed the Government on this matter, were in no way wishful to provide against the chances of a European war, but we had simply in mind our commitments for the Empire and for the defence of its frontiers. Every member of the Army Committee agrees that economies are absolutely necessary, and that therefore a reduction of military expenditure is inevitable. Immediately after the Geddes Committee reported, I happened to be in my constituency, and I told my constituents that I was prepared to take large risks with regard to reductions in the Army provided that other Departments were reduced pro rata, as recommended by the Geddes Committee. We have seen that practically the whole of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee with regard to the reductions in the Army have been accepted by the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Four-fifths of them have, at any rate, while in the case of other Departments, and certainly in one particular case, less than one-third of the recommendations were adopted. It should, therefore, I think, be made quite clear that those of us who felt it our duty to oppose the Government on this matter did not desire, although we were prepared to take risks, to court disaster to our Empire. The whole thing hangs on the matter of our commitments and our policy, especially in the Near East. Even if we were to withdraw from Constantinople and Palestine, we should be still taking risks in a military sense. Of course, the really important matter we have to decide is to try to conciliate Moslem opinion throughout the world. If we do that, we shall diminish our risks in Egypt, in India and elsewhere. The late Secretary for India made a speech the other day. I did not often find myself in agreement with him in his management of Indian affairs, nor am I in agreement with him on his action in regard to his retirement, but I do agree with him in deploring what he called the calamitous pro-Greek policy
of the Government. I am sure that until we do try to conciliate Moslem opinion in this matter, we are, by the reductions in the Army, running very great risks for the Empire. There is one minor point on which I should like to say a few words. The Secretary for War alluded to the reduction of cavalry regiments, and I understood him to say that two squadrons are to be taken from both the First and Second Life Guards. I wanted to know if the Horse Guards were also to be reduced.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): No.

Colonel WHITE: I am glad to be told that they are not to be affected.

Viscount WOLMER: I rise to raise a question on a Government scandal that can only be discussed on a Vote in which the salary of the Secretary for War is involved, because it does not directly figure in the Estimates. I allude to the question of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes—a great Government trading monopoly which has been set up and which is now operating on a vast scale throughout the British Empire. I should like to give the Committee a short account of the genesis of this very peculiar body whose operations have not previously come under the searchlight of Debate in this House, although there have been many questions put and answered about it recently. The Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes are the successors of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was started during the War, and which took over the Expeditionary Force Canteens on the 1st May, 1919. The first point I desire to make is that the present organisation with which we are dealing, and which I am about to criticise, is a purely peace organisation. It has nothing to do with our policy during the War. Whether the Expeditionary Force Canteen constituted a right organisation for the War I do not propose now to discuss. Personally I think it did. But these Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have been deliberately established by the Government as a peace canteen policy for the British Army, Navy, and Air Force. This body is controlled by a Board of Control appointed by the three Departments concerned. It was originally
floated with an advance from the Treasury which has since been repaid, and it enjoys a complete monopoly in all our camps throughout the British Empire. To show the Committee the magnitude of the scale on which this organisation works, I may mention that for the year ending in 1918 its turnover was no less that £40,000,000. No doubt since the Armistice, the figures have been on a very much smaller scale, but we are unable to state what they are because the Government have refused to publish any balance sheets in connection with the undertaking since that date. The balance sheets for 1919, 1920, and 1921 have not been published, and later on I propose to make a few remarks on that point.
One further point of explanation I should like to give the Committee is this: That this body does not confine its operations to the usual activities of the canteen, but, on the contrary, deals in every conceivable object under the sun. I hold in my hand one of their price lists, and I will just read to the Committee a few of the items that are offered for sale by this Government organisation, which possesses a complete monopoly throughout the Army. It contains the following: Women's outfitting, blouses, blouse collars, ladies' bodices, camisoles, combinations. Every conceivable article of female underclothing is offered for sale by the Government through this organisation of the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes, sometimes at artificially cheap prices, and sometimes not. I will deal with that point later on. Then, if anyone wants to get a motor car, motorcars, and all accessories for motor cars, can be obtained from these institutes. The most expensive brands of champagne can be obtained, and, as an hon. Member says, grand pianos. In fact, there is not a single article that is sold by Messrs. Selfridge that cannot be obtained from this State trading department.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) on the front Opposition Bench remarks that this is a cooperative society, but I will point out to him, if I may, where he is mistaken. In the first place, a co-operative society is a democratically-managed body, and that, I venture to say, is a vital factor in the nature of a co-operative society. There is no democracy in the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, and there cannot be, by the nature of the case, until you have
a democracy established in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force themselves. The institutes are controlled by a Board which is not elected by the troops, but which is appointed by the Government. That is the first distinction between them and a co-operative society. The second is that co-operative societies claim to operate on an equality with all other traders, but this organisation does not wish to accept that condition at all. It claims a monopoly in all our camps, and all sort of privileges which co-operative societies do not claim. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where do the profits go?"] There have not been any profits yet, and it may be that the losses will have to be borne by the taxpayer. I am coming to that point in a few moments. I wish the Committee in the first place to realise the magnitude of the scale on which this organisation operates, and the diversity of the articles which it sells.
When the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes—or rather, their predecessor, the Navy and Army Canteen Board—took over the affairs of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, the Government intended that this organisation should be the new peace canteen organisation of the country. I should like to remind the Committee that before the War every regiment managed its own canteen, and the profits of that canteen went to a benevolent fund, over which the colonel of the regiment presided, and which gave help to soldiers on their return to civil life. I am afraid there is no prospect of help of that sort coming from the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, at any rate for a long time to come, for reasons which I propose shortly to give to the Committee. I should like to point out, therefore, that by the abolition of the old system the soldier has lost a valuable friend. When the new institution took over the Expeditionary Force canteens, it was laid down by the Government that when the accounts of the Expeditionary Force canteens were drawn up some reserve should be made in the final balance-sheet for the possible relief of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, that is to say, if it- made a loss. I am quoting now from the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Eccleshall (Sir S. Roberts), to which the Secretary of State referred in the course of his answer to a question this afternoon, and
of which I do not think he gave a perfectly accurate summary. I should like to remind the Committee that the Expeditionary Force canteens, which did all the canteen business for our troops abroad during the War, made a profit of about £10,000,000 up to the Armistice, and it was intended—in fact, it was promised—that this money should be handed over to Lord Byng's Fund, officially known as the United Services Fund. This £10,000,000 was to go for the benefit of the men who fought in the War. But here we see that, when the Navy and Army Canteen Board was set up, the Government said that part of the £10,000,000 made by the Expeditionary Force Canteens should be set aside for the possible relief of the Navy and Army Canteen Board. That is the next point against which I desire to protest. I do not think the Government had any right to take, for the purpose of floating their new State trading monopoly, a single penny of this money which was due to the men who fought in the War, and which was promised to them. The final liquidation of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was completed on the 31st August, 1920, and full balance sheets were then furnished to the Government by the auditors.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Where is that?

Viscount WOLMER: I am quoting from page 4 of the Report, where it is stated that
The liquidation of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was to a large extent completed by 31st August, 1920, and an interim statement of account up to that date was presented to the Army Council in October, 1920, together with certain Resolutions of the Expeditionary Force Canteens Committee.
It was subsequently stated in the House of Commons that no balance sheet was then furnished, but the auditors, Messrs. Maxwell Hicks and Company, wrote a letter to "Truth" on the 7th January, 1921, in which they said:
Our attention has been drawn to a written reply to a question in the House of Commons. … We therefore ask you to be good enough to give publicity to the following facts:—

1. The 'statement of accounts' referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office is, in fact, a balance sheet of Expeditionary Force Canteens made up to 31st August, 1920, and certified by us.
579
2. In the preparation of such balance sheet specific reserves have been made to the extent of over 50 per cent. of the cost price of all the Expeditionary Force Canteens stock belonging to the Organisation, and general reserves have been made sufficient, in our opinion, to cover any further losses on such stock which could possibly arise."
The point which I desire to make in that connection is that the Government have persistently refused to publish this balance sheet which was drawn up to 31st August, 1920. If that document were published it would show the public what the profit of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was and how much money is due to Lord Byng's Fund from that source. I want to ask my hon. and gallant Friend why the Government have refused to publish that balance sheet that Messrs. Maxwell Hicks & Company drew up and presented on behalf of the Expeditionary Force Canteens on 20th August. If that is published it will show how much money is due to the ex-service men. But it has not been published, and I will tell the Committee why. The Committee which the Government appointed last year to inquire into this matter said in their Report:
We understand that it was anticipated that, should the overseas business continue for an appreciable time, the Navy and Army Canteen Board would probably make a sufficient profit to enable them to wind up without calling upon the Expeditionary Force Canteens' past profits, but these anticipations were falsified by unexpectedly rapid demobilisation. In any case there appears to be no doubt that considerable losses have been incurred.
So what really happened is this. You had during the War the Expeditionary Force Canteens. They made about £10,000,000 profit, which was to be distributed to the ex-service men, but instead of distributing that money to the ex-service men, the Government started this Navy and Army Canteen Board on a peace basis and kept back part of the money of the Expeditionary Force Canteens in order to finance this Navy and Army Canteen Board. And what happened? The Navy and Army Canteen Board proceeded to make colossal losses.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Everyone made losses.

Viscount WOLMER: The Government made bigger losses than most people; and
if you get a trading organisation which is controlled by gentlemen appointed by the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Force, three Departments which are not noted for their business efficiency or their success in business transactions, I do not think it is a matter for surprise that the losses of the Navy and Army Canteen Board were enormous.

Mr. WISE: One was a loan to the Prudential Insurance Company.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not know about that, but the losses were enormous according to all reports. Of course we are not able to quote the exact figures because the Government have refused to publish them and there are no figures since 1918. Again quoting from the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate:
On 17th December, 1919, the Army Council addressed a letter to the United Services Fund stating that all funds formed of the accumulated profits of canteen trading during the War and up to 31st December, 1919, as far as they were derived from the Army and the Air Force"—
Why not from the Admiralty I do not know—
would be placed at the disposal of the fund.
It was thought that the profits made by the Navy and Army Canteen Board up to 31st December, 1919, would finance the business on a peace footing and would be regarded as a permanent loan from the United Services Fund. Therefore the War Office informed Lord Byng's Fund that this great portion of their money which the Navy and Army Canteen Board had temporarily got hold of would be retained as a permanent loan from the United Services Fund. I want to know, what right has the Government to take this money, which was promised to the ex-service men and the beneficiaries of Lord Byng's Fund, and lend it permanently to this great State trading monopoly in order to finance it? This Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) presided, say in their report:
We consider that it would be far preferable that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes should not be financed from money derived from the pockets of ex-service men even if this money is regarded us being a loan at interest.
That is a very strong statement from a Committee and I protest, on behalf of the
ex-service men, against the money that is due to them being used to finance this organisation. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter consider that steps should be taken to get this money away from the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes as soon as possible by fixing a date and that the money, as soon as practicable, should be handed over to Lord Byng's Fund. They here speak of £7,000,000 as all that is likely to accrue to Lord Byng's Fund and I want to ask what has happened to the remaining £3,000,000. Are we to take it that £3,000,000 is the sum which the Navy and Army Canteen Board, now called the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes, has lost during their trading operations of the last two years, because if that is so it is a scandal of the first magnitude. I am sure the ex-service men will have something to say about the matter.
Then the Committee go on to discuss the possibility of what is to happen if the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes continue to make losses, and I should like to read the passage in which they deal with this matter at the end of their Report.
At the same time we realise that in special cases, or in special circumstances, canteen facilities have to be provided for the forces under conditions which render loss inevitable, if reasonable prices are to be charged, and although we agree that, generally speaking, the rough must be taken with the smooth, we see no alternative to recommending that where, under abnormal conditions, the organisation is unable to make both ends meet it should be indemnified from public funds. We understand that this principle has already been accepted in the case of the forces in Ireland.
May I ask whether that is the case. Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell the Committee whether the Government have in fact paid money to make up the losses of this organisation in Ireland, as is apparently stated by this Committee. I should like to ask also whether the Government endorses the general recommendation of the Committee and whether they are prepared to stand behind the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes and make good, out of the Estimates, any losses which these institutes are themselves unable to meet. Then this Committee go on to say:
As regards Ireland, not only is canteen trading at a profit impossible in that country at present, but the concentration of troops
there has its reflection in the reduction of the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes trade in the larger garrisons in England.
That is perfectly true. Owing to the depletion of the English garrison towns it appears from the Report of the Committee that the Navy Army, and Air Force institutes are not only making losses in Ireland, where the troops are, but they have been making losses in England also, where the troops are not. Therefore, there is a double loss which is falling on somebody. On whose shoulders is this loss going to fall? Is it going to fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country, or upon the shoulders of the ex-service men? It must fall on the shoulders of one or the other. In so much as the Government have refused to publish the figures, we are completely in the dark in regard to the matter.
There is another side to the question. I have tried to show that this is a State-controlled organisation, that it owes its original financing from the State, that it is now being financed partly from funds that ought to be given to the ex-service men under Lord Byng's fund, that it enjoys a complete monopoly in our camps and enjoys privileges that no other trader enjoys, and that in itself constitutes a very unfair competition against the private trader. This is a point which, naturally, the private traders feel acutely. This organisation, which is a monopoly, does not pay rent for its premises in the camp, it does not pay rates, it does not pay Income Tax, it does not pay Corporation Profits Tax, and yet it has managed to make a loss. I think that is a very remarkable performance. In the course of doing so, it has also damaged the trade of the private trader to a very large extent. Although I do not think that is a question of first magnitude, yet it is a matter of great injustice that in places such as the constituency which I represent, and also on Salisbury Plain, where whole communities have been called into being by the action of the Government in dumping a camp down on a perfectly barren spot, the Government should then come and hit the trading community by action of this sort, and leave them in great financial distress.
9.0 P.M.
This organisation is not operating for the benefit of the troops. I can illustrate that point by taking up a remark which
was made by an hon. Member sitting on the Labour Benches and explaining how it works. He asked whether it was selling at a cheaper rate than private traders can? and the answer to that question is, that in regard to some articles, that is to say, articles in which they are in competition with the shops outside the camp, they are able to offer terms with which the private trader cannot compete, but in regard to those articles for which they have a compulsory monopoly, they give very bad terms. Let me take the case of rations. The Committee knows that in respect of the rations an allowance is made for groceries by the Government, which is valued at 8 7/10d. per man per diem, and that comes to about £13 5s. per man per year. If you take the number of soldiers, sailors, and airmen at 200,000—I think that is a great underestimate, but I have not more accurate figures by me—it means an annual sale of £2,750,000. An organisation which has a monopoly in supplying these groceries, supplies them to the individual men at retail prices, and is making a 20 per cent. profit on every transaction with the individual soldier. That is really a scandal. These goods ought to be supplied to the troops at bed-rock prices. Instead of that, the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes treat the groceries as though they were part of their retail trade, and make a big profit out of every transaction. The result is that they are bound to make a very big profit out of the grocery rations of the troops, which they ought not to make, and which is, in that sense, taken from the pockets of the soldiers.
I will give an incident which arose in the police court at Andover quite recently. On the 17th November a prosecution was heard at the instance of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, in which the chief witness for the Institutes gave evidence on oath that the price charged to the Institutes by the brewery for a barrel of beer was 100s., and that they were selling it to the men at 144s. In addition to that, the barmen had to make what was called an unaccountable profit of between 5 and 10 per cent. Therefore, the Institutes are apparently making a gross profit of over 50 per cent. on their beer, which is sold as a monopoly to the unfortunate troops. When you have a monopoly that
is an excessive sum, and it shows that these Institutes are not being operated to the advantage of the soldiers. Never in the history of the world has a monopoly been found to be to the advantage of the consumer, and in this case the troops are the consumer. The Government have maintained that this organisation is for the benefit of the troops, and that the profits that will accrue will go for the benefit of the troops, but there have not been any profits, and it does not look as if there was likely to be any profits for a great number of years. Just in the same way as the Government have mismanaged every other business transaction which they have undertaken, they have mismanaged this, and made tremendous losses upon it, and how those losses are going to be met is a question which I ask to-night, and which I hope will be cleared up. These losses have been made in spite of the fact that this organisation enjoys a monopoly and uses that power as I have shown in some cases to obtain very high prices from the troops, although it undercuts in regard to a great many other articles. Finally it deals with a sphere of articles out of all comparison with anything which the Government have ever attempted to do before. As I have said to the Committee, there is nothing that you can purchase at Sel-fridge's or the Army and Navy Stores that you cannot get from this organisation, and the extent to which they are selling is collossal.

Mr. MORRISON: As one who is a silent Member, may I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a few minutes. This matter is of great interest to my constituents and I wish to join in the protest which has been made by the Noble Lord who represents Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). I have received a lengthy communication this morning from a body representing trade and commerce, including men of every shade of polities of my constituents. Private traders are having a very trying time. They have to bear a heavy burden of rates and taxes and they object to having to compete with State trading competitors who pay no rates and no rents and, I believe, up till recently paid no Income Tax. The Noble Lord has explained the points so fully that there are only one or two things to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. It is well known there are many religious
and philanthropic institutions doing very good work round our military camps, especially on Salisbury Plain, and the operations of these bodies are considerably hampered by restrictions, which they think unfair, in favour of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute. It seems hardly credible that these traders are unable to suppy Tommy Atkins with some simple articles of diet unless those articles are first purchased from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute.
Another matter which was brought to my notice only this morning is the case of a certain number of cinemas on Salisbury Plain in my constituency. Up to recently these cinemas paid no Entertainment Tax, but I understand that, probably because of this Debate, the tax has been imposed, beginning last Monday. Then there is another point to which I wish to refer. A number of traders in my Division put up expensive buildings at a cost of £2,000, pro-War prices. They expected to be able to trade for a reasonable time. The hours of trading are subject to military regulations of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and they are also subject to the Shop Hours Act. I understand that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute are not subject to these regulations anywhere. I wish to protest against this system of trading by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. The lot of back-benchers who support the Government is sometimes a hard one. I heard with great interest the speech made by the Leader of the House, who stated that one of the principles of our party was that they believed in private trading and private enterprise. It is difficult to reconcile those principles, which were laid down so admirably, with the attitude which has been taken by the War Office and others on this question.

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: I think that the question before the Committee is a wider one than should be considered upon the various small points that have been made by the Noble Lord. The question is whether we, as a nation and as people interested in the welfare of our soldiers, should provide these canteens, as they used to be called, for the benefit of the troops, or should revert—that is the end of the argument of the Noble Lord—to the pre-War conditions, a condition which I think this House and the country re-
pudiated as not suitable and not beneficial to the soldiers who served in our Army. Short of reverting to that, what is the meaning of the Noble Lord? I would ask him to remember the various deputations which have been to the War Office on the subject, and when they have been asked "what limit are you going to place upon what you are going to supply to the troops?" no definite answer has yet been received from any of these trading bodies beyond this vague statement, "You should supply the necessaries." What are the necessaries? We begin by supplying a club. After all, remember that these institutes are not only shops. They are clubs. They are social institutions. They keep the soldier out of trouble and out of public-houses. That is what they are there for primarily, and it is natural that the soldier wants some sort of refreshment.
If he wants a cup of coffee, he may then want lemonade, or a sandwich, or a bun, or some cigarettes and matches. Then it goes to soap and so on. No one in this Committee can begin to lay down the line and say where the necessities of the soldier and his family begin and end. After all, we are trying to improve the life and lot of the soldier and keep him out of temptation. That is really the long and the short of it. There is no use in these traders at Aldershot and other places coming here through the Noble Lord or other people and standing between the benefit of the soldier and the House of Commons. I have gone into this matter carefully and very deeply, and I feel strongly that this Committee ought to support the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Force in making the lot of the soldier better, in improving his condition, in giving him all we can in the way of helping him to amuse himself when he is not working, and in also providing him with the necessaries of life at reasonable cost. The Noble Lord talks about 20 per cent. profit. Has he ever considered the percentage on these things? Is he taking the margin between cost and what you get for an article and taking that as profit? The Noble Lord would make a bad business man if that is the way he conducted operations. You have to consider the cost of distribution, and what is the cost of keeping up these institutes in places where there is only a handful of men, and if you can make a margin of 20 per cent.
at Aldershot, what about the margin in Ireland, or in the North of Scotland, or in other places?
There is no use talking about the difference between what goods cost and the amount which you get for them in one particular place. We have got to consider the broad question. I ask the Committee not to be led away by statements on small points which are prejudiced or ex parte. Every one of them has been investigated by the War Office. The Noble Lord has come to the War Office several times on these deputations. He has been listened to. Every argument which he has put forward has been weighed not only by the War Office, which might be fallable, I admit, but also by the Navy and the Air Force, and all these bodies have come deliberately to the conclusion that it is for the advantage of the Service that we should encourage the continuance of these canteens, as they used to be called, or institutes, as I prefer to call them. My argument is based also largely upon the social side of the work which is conducted at these institutes. Do not let the Committee think that the margin between what goods cost and what is paid for them by the soldiers is profit which goes into some shareholders' pocket. If there is such a profit, where does it go? It belongs not to ex-soldiers, but to the serving soldier of to-day. It goes to supply him with various games and entertainments, and things which prevent his life from being, perhaps, injured by the conditions in which he has to live. It is for the benefit of the soldier and of the country. We are the custodians of those interests here, and we must not primarily regard the interests of private traders, but first and foremost the interests of our soldiers.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I challenge entirely the last words uttered by my right hon. Friend. I think it is an extraordinary proposition to lay down, as if it were a general truth, that we have to disregard the interests of traders and look after the interests of soldiers. Why? I say exactly the opposite. Certainly I have no wish to be behind anyone in the desire to do everything that is legitimate and proper in the interests of our soldiers, but, after all, it is really raising them into rather a privileged class to represent that they are above the inter-
ests of the trade of the country and that here our first and only consideration is what is to be considered for the advantage of the soldiers. To begin with, I doubt whether it is to the advantage of the soldiers. I certainly do not think the last speaker went any way at all to meet the very strong case put by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). My Noble Friend appeared to me to make an extraordinarily strong case against the management of these institutes. He showed conclusively that they are not for the advantage of the soldier. By reference to the actual prices he showed that the soldiers alone, without taking any wider view, do not get from these institutes the advantages to which they are entitled if the institutes were properly managed. The case made appeared to be unanswerable with regard to the diversion of the profits that accrued during the War and with regard to the concealment of the accounts.
A most extraordinary procedure was revealed by my Noble Friend. If any other business except the Government conducted its affairs on the same lines, very damaging epithets would be applied to it. I know that the last speaker is a business man. What sort of language would he apply to a business which concealed its balance sheet in order that the amount of profits and the use made of those profits might be hidden from the public? That is what has taken place. My Noble Friend pointed out inferentially that probably a profit of £3,000,000 has been lost, and that it is part of the £10,000,000 made during the War. He alleged that it had been frittered away, although the actual facts have been so concealed that we cannot speak with certainty. £3,000,000 has been frittered away in losses. It appears to me that the Government have a very strong case to meet.
On one point I wish to lay stress. If you are to have no regard for the interests of the trader, and if you could prove that by doing so you were benefiting the soldier, I could imagine certain friends of soldiers, who have no regard for trade, taking up that attitude. But it is not the attitude that the House ought to take. It seems to be extremely-unfair and damaging to the trade of the country that these privileged institutes
should be able to carry on trade side by side with the ordinary trader, but on privileged terms, and with exemption from taxation and rating. There is nothing that is causing a greater amount of discontent and trouble in the country to-day than the terrible burden of rates. What can be thought of the sentiments of an ordinary trader in a country town where there is one of these institutes? He is probably having a great struggle to make any profit. He is heavily rated on his premises, and finds great difficulty in paying his rates. He knows that a large part of the custom on which he might naturally depend is being lost to him because that custom is going practically next door to some building which is not paying rates or taxes, and is supported by Government finance to enable it to undersell the ordinary trader in many classes of commodities. The Government ought to consider this matter very seriously. It is a matter which is causing a great [...] of feeling throughout the country. As the case made is so strong, and till now has received no answer from the Government, I shall certainly support my Noble Friend in the Lobby.

Mr. T. THOMSON: As one who experienced considerable benefit when in the ranks overseas from the presence of the canteens, I sincerely hope that the Government will not go back to the customs that were prevalent in pre-War days. Anyone who served must know that the canteens supplied a very real need of the soldier. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was during the War."] We still have soldiers. With all respect to the arguments of the last speaker, I say that the first charge on the War Office is surely the welfare of those who are serving under it. I hope, therefore, that the War Office will not be debarred by criticism from supplying what is a real need to those who are least able to help themselves and will hold that the interests of the British trader, great as they may be, should be subservient to the welfare of the larger number of those to whom the traders look to protect them in the hour of need. At the same time I must say that I do not think the right hon. Member for Moray (Sir A. Williamson) met one of the points of criticism, namely, as to the balance of £10,000,000 which was left as a profit of the Canteen Boards overseas and which has not been handed
over to Lord Byng's Fund as was promised. That profit should go to the benefit of ex-service men, for it was made out of the ex-service men.
There, I support the Noble Lord, much as I differ from him on other points. The Government have only themselves to blame for the secrecy which attaches to this particular fund. Questions have been asked time and time again, and no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. I hope that to-day a representative of the War Office will tell the Committee what has become of the £10,000,000. If he suggests that he has to carry forward a balance to finance the new institutes, I submit with all respect that the financing of the now institutes should be a charge on the Army Vote and should not be taken out of the profits which were made overseas from ex-service men. That was a fund entirely separate, or should have been, and if a profit was made under these abnormal conditions it should have been expended on the ex-service men, as was, indeed, promised. I see that the loss has been greater than was anticipated and that the fall in values over an extended period is considerable. The correct thing would have been to strike a balance at the time, to strike out the loss, and not to carry forward a loss which has increased as the years have gone on. If that loss had been dealt with at the time of the Armistice it would have been considerably less than it is to-day.
I support the reduction of the Vote moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and I submit that the reduction he has moved is really well within the mark when you take the findings of the Geddes Committee. I consider that when the Geddes Committee tell us that without sacrificing efficiency in any way, and realising our present liabilities, there could have been a reduction from £75,000,000 to £55,000,000 and yet we find to-day that we are asked to vote £62,000,000, without including Iraq, there is good cause for this reduction. At a time when we are groaning with the burden of taxation and are sacrificing some of the Services which many think go to the upbuilding of the nation—such as in housing, health and education—for Services which do not produce that result, and which the Geddes Committee say can be efficiently carried out on a much smaller scale, it
is only right that a protest should be made. If we look back, we find that in 1913–14, £28,000,000 sufficed for this purpose, and to-day we are asked to spend over £62,000,000. Surely, allowing for the difference in the cost of things, that is far too much. After we have fought a war which was to put an end to war, the irony of the thing is that we are asked to pay more than twice what we paid before when Europe was an armed camp. I think we should show we are in favour of a pacific policy by setting an example to Europe, and by leading, as we did before the War. We led the nations to victory; let us lead now in peace, and let us set an example, so that when the Prime Minister goes to Genoa he will be able to show that we are really anxious to have a pacific policy and to have economy that will be for the well-being of the world as well as of ourselves.
I should like to refer to a much minor matter, but one in which considerable, interest is felt outside, namely, the policy of the Government in refusing to give those men who only saw home service any recognition whatsoever. I know this matter has been before the House and the Government before, but I submit there is an entirely new factor in the situation, inasmuch as the Government, by issuing to special constables a medal for war service, have created a sense of grievance and injury amongst those many men who, through no fault of their own, gave much greater service, and yet have received no recognition whatsoever. In answer to a question the other day the Minister for War said that the medal which had been given to the special constables was not an Army medal. That is perfectly true, but it is a medal for war service issued under Royal Warrant, and described in that Royal Warrant as being in recognition of devoted service rendered by members of the Special Constabulary during the War, and the medal has a clasp On which is inscribed "The Great War, 1914–18." I hold that if the special constables—who did excellent service, but under very different conditions from those who served at home, or the Territorials, or pre-War Army men who, over age, came up and spent many years and long days as drill instructors and drill sergeants licking our
new Army into shape—are to have these medals it is a serious reflection on those men that they should have no recognition. Do not give them necessarily the same medal as is given to men who served overseas, but do give them some recognition. Hon. Members must have seen many, many cases which have involved particular hardship. You have a Territorial Force which mobilised immediately that war was declared in 1914, and containing men who volunteered for overseas service, and who, through no fault of their own, were detained at home, some because of their excellence as drill or musketry instructors, men who were willing to go overseas but were not allowed to do so. These men, who have many years' service behind them, some over 4¼ years, have been denied any recognition whatsoever, because an unkind fate kept them here.
I am quite certain those of us who served overseas, and who get the medals for that service, would not in any way grudge the home service men having some recognition, and surely at a time when you are anxious to increase your Territorial Force and to make it attractive you are doing a bad turn to the officers who are raising the Territorials by giving this obvious slight to those who have done that service. I had a letter the other day from a Territorial who had put in 35 years for his country, and who was not able to go overseas through ill-health. He enlisted in 1914, and his division was not called for overseas till July, 1916. In the meantime he had been in Ireland in troublous times; when the Territorials were mobilised ho was an A1 man, but when he was called before the doctor for service overseas he was turned down on account of strained heart due to his service in the Territorials. He gets no recognition whatever. I have another case showing another anomalous position. A British subject in the Western States of America as soon as War was declared travelled the 5,000 miles to come here, enlisted, although he was over age, and, although he was unable to go overseas, served for 4½ years, and received no recognition whatsoever. The irony of the thing is that he goes back to America, and the United States authorities issue to him a medal for service with an Allied Army.
That is to say, the United States authorities give to a British subject that which the War Office here refuses to allow him to have. In this manner you can go through a large number of cases.
I have a case of an ex-Guardsman who has done great services. He was over age, volunteered, and spent the whole of the four years on the drill square licking into shape the raw recruits who came along. As a drill sergeant he had over 16,000 men through his hands. His younger son had gone abroad just before the Armistice, landed in France, and, being in the Signal Service of the Post Office, he was called home, and only saw a few months' service. He gets his medal, and then he says to his father, "What did you do in the Great War?" His father replies, "I did this," and the son answers, "Where are your medals?" This lad, a mere stripling, has his medals, but the father, an ex-Guardsman, four years on the drill square, training thousands of men, gets nothing. If you are to have medals at all, and if you are to have the same medals for men who were in the firing line as for those who were on some cushy job at the base, who never saw the end of a gun, you are not stretching the point considerably if you grant a medal to the men who saw home service. I do urge that the War Office and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that outside there is a very sore feeling on the question, and having given the medal—whether you call it an Army or a War medal—to the special constables, it does give a reason for the whole matter to be reopened and to be considered again in order that these men who did grand service, and especially the Territorials, shall not be deterred in the future by what so far appears to be unfair treatment at the hands of the Government.

Colonel BURN: I should like to say one word on the question of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said on that subject. I think the private trader is unfairly handicapped in competition with these institutes. The staff of the institutes are paid differently, they have particular advantages in buying all their stores, and the system hits the private trader uncommonly hard. In my own constituency there is a case in
point, and that is the canteen of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. They purchase stores under exceptional conditions and the staff is employed under special conditions.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he is now dealing with a matter which does not arise on this particular Estimate.

Colonel BURN: I was only quoting that as a case which is exactly on all fours with that of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. The private traders of the towns are being very hard hit, and it is especially severe on them in these days when business is so slack. I will not, however, pursue the matter if it be not in order to do so, although I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that these institutes are very unfair on the private trading system. I wish to take the opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the statement he has made about the cavalry regiments. Naturally, I am pleased that my own old regiment remains as it was. I congratulate him on having listened to the appeal which I made when the subject was under discussion at the end of last year, and when it was first proposed that these four cavalry regiments should be disbanded. From what the right hon. Gentleman paid to-day, I understand the cadres of these regiments will remain, so that the regiments will really retain their traditions and prestige, and it will be a very simple matter, should the necessity arise, to fill up the vacancies and place them as they were before, in a state of efficiency and ready to go on service. It is satisfactory to know that these distinguished regiments will retain their titles and will practically remain in being.
I suggest that, as regards the infantry regiments which it is proposed to disband, consideration should also be had for distinguished regiments which have rendered admirable service to their country. I fully realise the necessity for economy. Economy comes before everything, in those days when from the house-tops, everybody is crying out about the burdens of taxation they have to bear. A reduction of expenditure is necessary now, more than ever, but I claim that these regiments should not be allowed to disappear altogether. In their case also the
cadres should be allowed to remain. All that is required is a cadre, one or two officers and a nucleus of men, and the expense which that would involve could very easily be met, in the first instance, by putting more regiments on very low establishments. If you have the nucleus of a regiment, vacancies can be filled up very quickly when the necessity arises, and provided an efficient reserve is kept, you will have there the material with which to make up these regiments when they are required. I feel convinced that such a course would give great satisfaction throughout the Army. I also agree with hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate and who are satisfied that if the evacuation of certain places were carried out, the money saved by that evacuation would more than pay for the retention of these regiments in the Service. The British Army, small as it is, has always been the most efficient army of any country in Europe, or, indeed, in the world, and efficiency counts for a great deal. Once the spirit of efficiency is infused in an army, however small the beginning may be, you always have the right spirit continuing to imbue the men as the regiments are increased to war strength. We had an example of that in the early days of the War, when the "contemptible little Army," small as it was, proved its real value by stemming the advance of the Germans on Paris.
I should like to know exactly how we stand as regards France. What is the understanding between this country and France? In my belief, a compact between France and Great Britain would make for the peace of Europe more than anything else, and while it may not be thought wise to enter into a real alliance, at the same time we should be able in the quickest possible time to put a force in the field in the event of necessity arising and be in a position to assist our friends. We have heard a great deal about our overseas Dominions. Some of us know-that there was a section in this House who looked on our overseas Dominions as an incubus to this country, to be got rid of at the first possible opportunity. I think that view ought to have been dispelled by this time. Anyone who served in the War and knows what the overseas Dominions did for us must realise fully that without the forces which they sent to our assistance we should
have been in a very bad way. These are a few points which I claim to be worthy of consideration, and I trust the powers that be, will give them that full consideration which they deserve, and will always remember that what we have to stand by is the prestige of our country and Empire.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: I have listened to this Debate with great interest and to the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) with considerable amusement. He may not be aware of the fact that, although I am a Member of this House, I am, unfortunately or fortunately, as the case may be, chairman of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, which have been so much maligned to-night. The Noble Lord talks of these institutes as not being democratic. As chairman, I consider myself a democrat in every sense of the word, and after the Noble Lord has heard the few remarks I intend to make I hope he will change his mind as far as the merits of the canteens are concerned. I take it the basis of the Noble Lord's attack is nothing more nor less than that certain traders in his constituency do not find it convenient that the soldier should trade with himself. Has my Noble Lord ever heard of the co-operative system? I do not know what his vote was when we were dealing with co-operative matters here some time ago, but I certainly have a very lively recollection of those Debates, and the Labour party, I should think, from the attitude which they then adopted, would support en masse any such co-operative system as the soldiers, sailors and airmen have chosen to inaugurate among themselves. Why, if any body of men choose to trade—

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member did not hear my speech.

Sir C. BARRIE: I did. I sat throughout it, unfortunately.

Viscount WOLMER: But I dealt with that point.

Sir C. BARRIE: The Noble Lord dealt at random with so many points that I do not think the Committee was really able to pick out what he really intended to say.

Dr. MURRAY: Yes, the Committee was.

Sir C. BARRIE: The canteen system is no new one. I understand, from information which I have had, that for about a hundred years the forces in this country had endeavoured to institute some such system as we have to-day. It only became acute, however, in 1899, when a Committee of the various Departments endeavoured to grapple with this matter. The time was evidently not ripe at that moment, and nothing succeeded, but what was the consequence? The South African War took place, and Sir Redvers Buller, immediately he got to the front, had to institute nothing more or less than the field canteen force system. At the end of the South African War a Committee was set up, presided over by Lord Grey, and their reference was as follows:

"(1) Whether it is advisable to alter (canteen) conditions with a view of obtaining for soldiers similar benefits to those now gained by co-operative societies for their members.
(2) If the above is considered advisable, by what method it should be carried out."
This Committee at that time made certain recommendations, but unfortunately, for some reason or other, they were not given effect to. What followed? In 1914 a well-known firm of canteen contractors and certain military personnel were prosecuted, and in a leading article which I have by me I find the following:
We shall draw but one conclusion from the case. The time has manifestly come when the whole of the present canteen system, under which abuses … of the kind disclosed in this trial have grown up and flourished, should become the subject of scorching investigation on behalf of the Government … We trust that out of evil good may come.
As a result of the canteen scandals of that date, Lord Rotherham's Committee was appointed, and in 1914 it came to the conclusion that the canteen system must stop. What has all this resulted in? Simply this, that when the Great War broke out it became absolutely essential that some sort of canteen system should be adopted. The contractors' system by that time had broken down, and something had to take its place. Before the arrival of the Expeditionary Force canteens in France, the prices to the soldier had gone up by 50 per cent., but immediately the canteen system arrived prices, of course, were very much reduced, so far as the soldier was concerned, and he got his articles at what
was then the proper price. To continue, the end of the War came, and a Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) came to the following conclusion:
From the evidence that we have heard, we are convinced that the maintenance of a permanent organisation of the kind is most desirable as a matter of policy, both because of the amenities which it affords to members of the forces, and more particularly because it provides the nucleus of a service capable of immediate expension on mobilisation.
I think, from what I have said, that the Committee will see that this is not a matter that has been entered into lightly. No fewer than five Committees have sat on this subject. They have all recommended that a canteen system should be adopted, and, surely, if the soldier, the sailor, and the airman choose to trade amongst themselves, to keep the profits amongst themselves—

Viscount WOLMER: They have never been asked.

Sir C. BARRIE: —and to use such profits as they may make in order to further their own systems of amusement and relieve one another, is there any reason why they should not? What is the option? To go back to the old canteen system, which has been condemned? I think the Committee will agree with me that, after all the Committees that have sat and examined these matters, and after the experiences of the South African War and the late War, this is not the time of day to go back to an old system which has been condemned and whose transactions will hardly bear the light of day. These are the only general matters I should like to touch upon with regard to the maintenance of the canteen system, for the main reply to the questions put by the Noble Lord will come from the Front Bench. Suffice it to say, that during the time I have been Chairman of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, we have had nothing but praise from the whole of the Services with regard to the maintenance of the system, and expressions of goodwill from them all that it may long continue.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is not my intention to follow in the discussion relative to the merits of either State socialism or private capitalism. The discussion of that subject so far reminds me
of a meeting of shop assistants where they had been quarrelling about the respective merits of voluntary co-operation and private trading. I hope the Debate will rise to a higher standard than that. The Amendment before the Committee is to the effect that the Vote on Account should be reduced by the sum of £1,000,000, and I desire to support that Amendment. It is customary on the Government's side, I notice, to use an argument like this when they are dealing with economy in connection with any of the public Services. They say, in effect, that they spent last year £100,000,000, and this year they propose to spend only £62,000,000, and they draw the conclusion that they are making a saving to the National Exchequer of about £40,000,000. I think the basis of their argument is wrong. They ought to correspond the expenditure, not with what happened last year, but with the expenditure, say, in 1914. That, I think, is the proper method of making comparisons in this connection. Let us turn to the figures for a moment. The figure of the total expenditure on the Army for 1914–15 was £28,845,000. It is now proposed to spend £62,300,000, in spite of the fact that the War was supposed to end in 1918.
That was not exactly the point to which I rose to draw the attention of the Committee. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the War Office one or two very pertinent questions. I understand that there is in existence, in connection with the War Office, what is termed a Chemical War Committee. This Committee has concealed its operations very much from the public, but I happen to be a member of an authority to which this Committee made application some time ago to use a very large municipal college of technology in order to conduct research into poison gas, and I do not think it would be right if I did not express the abhorrence of the people of that city—the best of them—against the promotion of this part of research work by the War Office. I think that hon. Members ought to know exactly what is transpiring in connection with chemical warfare. We have been told here this week that some time ago the Navy was regarded as our first line of defence. The military Gentlemen in this House have combated that view, and argued that the soldier was the most im-
portant unit in our forces. Then the Gentlemen connected with the Air Service came along and said that the airmen were the people to defend our shores in the near future.
I venture to suggest that the man who will count most in warfare in the future will not be the sailor, will not be the soldier, will not be the airman, but will be the scientist, and I want to ask, with due respect, that, instead of spending more money in trying to find out a formula to secure a gas that will poison thousands of people, the Government will spend their energies in something better. Towards the end of the War the War Office sent a mission to that part of the Continent that was conquered by our Armies, and they visited several chemical factories that were left intact by the Germans on their retreat. I was astonished to read the report of that mission. They say:
In the future, it is clear that every chemical factory must be regarded as a potential arsenal.
10.0 P.M.
I rose in this Debate, not because I understand military manœuvres, not because I am interested so much in military adventures, not because I am so much concerned with the growth of this Empire, and the policing of the Empire by airships, bombs, and so forth, but I want to raise my protest—and I think I have a considerable number of people behind mo in this connection—against, the diabolical idea that the next war, as we have heard from some of those benches, when it comes will be more infernal than ever. I think Members on this side of the Committee, at any rate, are not prepared to accept, in the cool fashion it has been mentioned on the other side, that we are to have a great war within the next five or 10 years. I trust the nations of the earth will come to the conclusion that wars do not settle anything in the end. They settle nothing. You have had the biggest war in the history of the world. The people of this country are poorer today than ever they were, and I want to raise my voice, at any rate, against the idea that Gentlemen on that Bench are now prosecuting their researches in order to find out how they can poison thousands of people—probably people who are not connected with the Army at all. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) yesterday pictured what
might happen to Paris or London, and let me remind the Committee that in the past, when nations were fighting each other with navies and armies, Gentlemen in this House probably felt quite comfortable at home in their mansions, but if war were to be conducted, as has been hinted in this House already, by dropping bombs containing these chemicals, then I feel sure it behoves some hon. Gentlemen opposite to think what might happen to their own homes if a great war in future occurred on these lines. I trust that the Secretary of State for War will regard this protest, at any rate, as being made with all the sincerity I can offer, and I trust he will withdraw that little staff he has in the Manchester College of Technology, where they are now conducting research in order to find out a formula that will help in the next war. I want to raise my protest against the whole infernal and diabolical business that nations are making researches to conduct war with poison gas.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into the matter he has raised, except to say that it may, perhaps, occur to him that it is worth our while to pursue chemical research in order that, if we are attacked by poison gas, we may have some resources with which to defend ourselves. Perhaps he does not realise that we were not the first to use poison gas. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) moved a reduction of £1,000,000, and remarked that I seemed surprised. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman I am never surprised at anything he does. He then went on to discourse about that on which we have already had a long discussion, which was entirely answered, I think, by the Secretary of State when he made his speech. The hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel White) only asked one question, which, I think, I answered at the time. Then we come to the subject about which most of the discussion has taken place.
The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer) raised the question of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes. I have heard the Noble Lord on several occasions on this matter. He speaks with considerable feeling—I might almost say with considerable vehemence—
about it. I know he feels very strongly on the matter, but the unfortunate thing is that he makes certain assumptions, and then states them as facts—a rather dangerous thing to do, I think. He talks about this as a scandal. I quite expected him to say that. I have heard him say that before. He talked about a Government trading monopoly. I have also heard about that before. He also spoke about the genesis of it. He was a little wrong in his facts, but nothing to speak of. They were fairly accurate. And then he said that out of that arose this peace organisation, and he wanted to know whether the War Office intended to carry on this peace organisation. I may as well tell him at once that we do this for the benefit of the Navy, Army and Air Force, and that we do propose to continue it. I rather want to deal with some of the definite charges that the Noble Lord made about these institutes. He said that we had absolutely refused to publish any balance-sheet.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry if I gave the Committee the impression that in 1918 a balance-sheet was not published. I do not think I could have done so, because I quoted the turnover of £40,000,000 from the 1918 balance-sheet.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I apologise to the Noble Lord. I thought he said it had not been published. I took his words down and I understood him to-say we have refused to publish any balance sheets since 1918.

Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is not so. We are doing all we can to get these balance sheets out. I have spent many, many hours myself with various people, including the liquidators, endeavouring to get the whole of these matters settled up, so that we can produce balance sheets, and I tell the Noble Lord that we are doing the best we can. When the Noble Lord says we are not doing the best we can then he is talking about something he does not know anything about.

Viscount WOLMER: When will they be published?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have already told the Noble Lord we are doing the best we can to get them out as soon
as possible, and when we do get them out the Noble Lord will not have so much to talk about. The Noble Lord told us several other very interesting things. He said that every regiment managed its own canteen and that there were some nice little funds derived by the regiments in consequence. Is the Noble Lord quite sure about that—that every regiment manages its own canteen?

Viscount WOLMER: I was reading the second paragraph of the Report of the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I was only asking the Noble Lord as to whether or not he is perfectly certain? If he had gone into the history of some of the times when the tenant system was in vogue, he would possibly agree that it would not be a very pleasant system to go back to. He will possibly remember some of the scandals in 1914 and some of the people who were implicated, and I do not think he would be particularly anxious to go back to the state of affairs we had then. The Noble Lord drew some funny assumptions—I will not say that—but he said there were 10 millions of the money left over when the Expeditionary Force came home again. He quoted certain paragraphs from the Report presided over by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) which said it was anticipated that the Army and the Navy Board would possibly make sufficient profit to enable them to wind up.… Does the Noble Lord think that the men who were demobilised because the War had apparently ended—the men of the Expeditionary Force—went straight home and were not provided with anything as well as the men that were left out? These men had to be provided for just as much as during the War. Then the Noble Lord told us that there were £10,000,000, and he said that the statement had been made that £7,000,000 would be handed over to the United Services Fund; then he went on to say that that meant that we would lose £3,000,000. Why does he think that? That is the sort of assumption that the Noble Lord makes, and puts it forward as a fact. He does not realise that certain commodities and comforts were given to the troops during the War, nor does he realise what was done for the Colonial Forces, who were treated much the same
as the Expeditionary Force had been, and just the same as our own troops. This sort of assumption put forward as fact makes it impossible to deal with the Noble Lord in this matter.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state where that money has gone to?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Where it goes to? The Noble Lord states that there will be no profits. I agree. Yes, but does he know why? We give an 8 per cent. rebate on the gross turnover, and we do not intend to make any profit. If any profits are made, they will be set aside for a definite fund. Up to date there have been no profits. The Noble Lord said nothing about the 8 per cent. rebate. He talks about the tremendous advantages of the arrangement. The canteens have had no more advantages than the tenants had under the old tenant system of canteens. What we have been doing is to put up decent places where the men can go and spend their time of recreation. Any hon. and gallant Member who served before the War will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that the places the men had to go to were perfectly horrible. The only place was the canteen bar, and the canteens were really run to make a profit on the sale of beer. I think it is a matter of congratulation all round that the sale of beer has decreased since pre-War days to a remarkable extent, and that the coffee sales are most remunerative. This alone, in my opinion, would be sufficient to justify the experiment—if we may term it an experiment. It is rather a system we are carrying out in our canteens at the present time. The Noble Lord said that these canteens were State-aided. That is not so, nor do they get any more privileges than did the tenant of the canteen under the old system, except as arranged by the Roberts Committee that where under normal conditions the organisation is unable to make ends meet it should be indemnified out of public funds. That is the only case in which that is done. They are receiving no privileges that the tenant could not have had under the old system. We have referred to the Law Officers for their opinion as to under what conditions we could pay over the money to the United Services Fund. I am not sure that we have actually received their verdict, but
I ask the Noble Lord to take this as a statement of fact, that they are under the impression that we will have to do this by Vote of the House or by Act of Parliament.

Viscount WOLMER: This surplus remaining above the Expeditionary Force Canteens' expenditure can only be transferred by Act of Parliament or Vote to the United Services Fund?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I said by Act of Parliament or Vote, and I ask the Noble Lord not to press the matter beyond that point. But do not let the Noble Lord run away with the idea that it is not going to be paid. Now let me turn to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson). He talks about the home service medal.

Viscount WOLMER: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the former subject, may I remind him of a question he has not answered? Can he explain why the balance sheet of the Expeditionary Force Canteen of August, 1920, has not been published, and whether it does not show that there was £10,000,000?

Lieut-Colonel STANLEY: I am not sure about that, but I will try and find out. There were all sorts of different plans by various authorities, and I have spent hours trying to get them settled up, and to give a complete balance sheet and pay out the money as soon as we can to the United Services Fund.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not want to be discourteous, but I wish to say that I pointed out that in the report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) they dealt with the balance-sheet of 31st August, 1920. I read out a letter from the auditors to the newspaper "Truth" in which they said that this balance-sheet was a complete statement up to that date. I asked why that balance-sheet could not be published, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me a full reply, although it is not the first time the question has been asked.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I was not there at the time, but I will find out and let the Noble Lord know. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke about home service medals. Has the hon. Member ever con-
sidered that once you embark upon such a policy as that, you cannot possibly limit it, and no one begrudges the money after having decided to do it. I think, however, it is rather a commentary on the action of the hon. Member that he should now join with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in support of an Amendment reducing this Vote by £1,000,000 when the hon. Member himself is perfectly ready to spend a large sum of money on a matter which is dear to his heart.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: We have now the Army Estimates before us, but I think we have far too little time given us to consider the details of this great expenditure. Personally I support the Vote before the House because I think we ought to maintain our fighting forces. I think, however, there should be strict economy in administration. One reason why I am in favour of maintaining the fighting forces of our Army at the present time is because I think that the turning out of the Army of such a large number of men is only going to add to the number of the unemployed. When I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Chester-le-Street talking on this question, I felt largely at one with him when he said he was anxious for economy in all these directions. He told us he believed that every penny saved in this way could be spent in bettering the conditions of the people. But I felt inclined to question whether in making these economies we were not going to do ill to rather than benefit the people who are at present without houses. If these suggestions are carried out we are going to turn out of the Army, which they joined voluntarily, 20,000 men, who will have to find houses. Will not that be a hindrance to rather than a betterment of trade and employment?
I wish to pass on from the point that we want to maintain our fighting forces to a point where I believe economies can be effected. I very much regret the statement made in the paper circulated to-day in regard to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. By the way, I do not agree with their recommendation for cutting down the forces. I think they might have gone far further in other directions in their recommendations for economy. The statement to
which I refer is one to the effect that the consideration of the Cardwell scheme is not necessarily involved. The Secretary for War, in his speech to-night, warned us that there were many arguments against doing away with the Cardwell system, and that one of them was that if he had a long-service Army abroad we would have no reserves at home. But surely you can have home service battalions in lesser numbers. You could get men to come in and train when employment is bad in the country. We are going to start our Militia again. That was a very fine force. It was one of which we were all proud. I was a member of it myself. We are going to restart it. Why should we not form a reserve in times of unemployment and enable men to come into the force and have a chance of acquiring knowledge which can be used in defence of their country if necessary? A small sum would have to be set aside for the purpose of forming a reserve upon which we could call. Personally, I should be ready to go further than some hon. Members, perhaps, would, and to allow, in times of bad employment, men who were ready to come and learn the elements of what is necessary for the defence of their country to do so without any obligation. I would suggest that, when the unmarried men of this country were out of employment, and were ready to show their patriotism by learning how to defend their country, they might be taken, say, for six months, and, if they found a job might be allowed to go when it came along. I feel sure that men allowed to serve with that amount of freedom would be ready, should a time of necessity come, to serve in defence of their country. I feel that we have now reached a time when it is necessary somewhat to moderate the system which obtained in the Army during the days when I first joined. It is absolutely necessary now to explain to men why you wish them to do things. Steps of that kind are now being taken, and I believe that, if the men who are now in the Army thoroughly understand why certain restrictions are put upon them, and why they are required to do things, they will do them. The education of the men in that way will improve the efficiency of our Army. I believe that its efficiency is being improved now, but this should be carried further,
and I feel sure that we should be able, at small expense, to get a reserve of men ready to serve if during certain months we opened recruiting to our militia on these lines.
I should like to point out certain methods by which I believe economies could be effected, and, in the first place, I desire to refer to the question of education. On the last occasion on which the Army Estimates were before the House, I pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman several reductions, but did not get much satisfaction. He said he was going to look into everything this year. I cannot help bringing a certain reproach against the War Office, against the Financial Secretary, and against the Minister himself, for not looking into these things a little sooner, and bringing in these economies before they were absolutely forced upon them by the Geddes Committee. I think it would have been well if they had paid a little more attention to the speeches which we have heard from all quarters of the House, and had tried to bring in these economies without waiting for the Geddes Committee to come along and say what economies should be effected. As regards education, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the School of Education is done away with. It is an absolute waste of money, and to waste money simply for some fad is ridiculous. I am certain that if you were to ask any officer who commands a battalion, and who knows his business, or any non-commissioned officer, he would tell you the same thing. It is no use, however, listening to the people who have to administer these theories.
Then the School of Administration ought certainly to be done away with. Why should you teach soldiers political economy? If they want to learn it, they can go to civilian schools and pay the fees. It is no part of the business of the Army to teach political economy, and if army officers have to learn it there are plenty of schools for them. There are various other directions in which economies might be effected. Overhead charges ought to be reduced in the Army, and I will at once take a point which has been mentioned by the Geddes Committee, namely, the construction of depots. We have heard nothing about depots being reduced. They ought to be
combined, as I believe has been proposed by an hon. Member to-day. We are now going in for economies. What is being done? We are doing away with battalions. You can keep one depot with the same staff which trains two battalions. It is ridiculous to keep the fixed staff of these depots only training troops for two battalions. These depots could be combined and it would certainly reduce the staff. At present we have two captains and two subalterns teaching the recruits of two battalions. It is too many. These points want dealing with. I apologise for going into details, although the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord K. Cecil) says details ought to be dealt with in the House. It seems to me the big questions are dealt with, but these smaller details are points on which great economies could be effected, and they are not brought to the notice, I believe, of the Secretary of State by the War Office because all the interest of the War Office is to keep up the establishment. Soldiers who have been through company and regimental commands know that many of these economies could be effected, and it is in the House of Commons only that these facts are brought to the notice of the Minister.
Having dealt with the depots, hoping the Secretary of State will look into the matter and do something, I should like to pass to the question of the schools. No one who was in the Army before the War will deny that we had in Hythe one of the most excellent schools, which brought musketry to a high state of efficiency. Anyone who went overseas with the Expeditionary Force knows that the control of musketry was absolutely amazing. Why on earth should a school of musketry now have an unusually increased staff? We have now far fewer men to be trained in England, and the school of musketry has a far bigger staff than it had before the War. These things ought not to be. Hon. Members opposite believe in their Empire, though our methods are different, and I am certain they will agree that you must not have excrescencies of this sort while at the same time you are cutting down battalions and batteries of artillery. The school of musketry was very effective before the War, and it ought to have the
same staff now. The school of musketry before the War was also a machine-gun school. Why are these things going on I It is simply to employ people. It is not right that jobs should be found for everyone who is employed on the staff. The straffs in the War were very much too big. We can not afford in times of peace to keep the same staff. I know the War Office will tell me it is not possible to reduce it, but let the right hon. Gentleman take his courage in both hands. If he brings the machine gun school to Hythe and has an added course, so that a certain number of officers can be kept on for the machine gun course and the Lewis gun and ordinary musketry is still taught, he will cut down a great many overhead charges and reduce the staff of the two colleges by a considerable number. I am willing to admit that the machine gun school has done very good work, but the battalions have their own machine gun sections and a sufficient number of officers and men have been trained to do their training in the battalions, and it is now absolutely unnecessary to keep a separate machine gun school. I shall probably have the War Office against me when I refer to the question of Sandhurst. We are told that the Government is going to make an economy, but what is that economy to be? It is to be effected by making the man who sends his son to serve his country pay more for his education. The man who sends his son into the Army is often not rich, and if we are going to save the taxpayer £100 by making the man who sends his boy into the Army to pay an extra £100, I am not sure that that is altogether fair and equitable. The man who sends his son into the Army to defend his country has no more right to be taxed an extra £100 than the man who keeps his son at home and puts him into business in which he makes £1,000 a year. I question whether it is good policy to put an extra burden upon the men who send their sons either into the Army as officers or into the ranks as private soldiers. There is a great doubt in my mind as to whether it is necessary to keep a boy at Sandhurst for two years. I was not at Sandhurst myself, but I know that the course there has been continually changed. At a time like this, when we require economies, the duration of the course at Sandhurst should be cut down. It should only be
for the duration of a year. I know that I could put up many arguments on the other side.

Sir L. WORTH1NGTON - EVANS: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: That is so, but you have to come to the facts, and if you are going to save money you must give a little less education. This is not the best method for training an officer for his military duties before he has been to his regiment. Let the boys go to Sandhurst for a year. I am told that the drill at Sandhurst is the best drill in the world, better than the drill in the brigade of Guards. I do not deny that. If you take some of the best educated men from our public schools, and put them through a high course of training and drill, and they are very keen and willing, if they drill better than a body of men who enter the Army without education, and perhaps some of them without that quickness which education is able to give, it is not surprising that it should be so. It is far better for a boy to go and learn the command of men than to drill smartly in a battalion. The boy goes through all this drill at Sandhurst, and when he goes to his regiment he has to go through it all again. It is a waste of time. What we require is that a boy should be taught his military duties, and it is of far more value, to him to learn his drill in command of men, and learn how to lead others, than to spend his time in drill under a drill-sergeant at Sandhurst or at Woolwich. If you cut down the course to one year you could combine the courses at Sandhurst and Woolwich. Why keep there two big establishments? In Sandhurst you can have 700 cadets. If you have only one year's course you only want 350, and it would be a great advantage to the infantry and the artillery to start their life together, so that in future they may be friends, and whenever the opportunity occurs they may work together in the close cooperation which we all desire. These are all points that affect the regimental officer. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that old-fashioned infantry officers were against the Air Force. Though I may be old-fashioned, there is nothing more untrue as regards a person
like myself. The infantry soldier formerly had to do all the dirty work, but things have been changed greatly of late. Infantry officers at the beginning of the War were often left in the trenches for 21 days. When it comes to the pinch, the infantry soldier is the man who has to bear the brunt of these things, and I would press the right hon. Gentleman not to cut down the number of men who are going to defend the country in case of need, but to look for those economies which can be effected with other branches of the Service.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I under stand that the Secretary of State for War wants to get a couple of votes this evening and therefore I will be very brief. Everybody will agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland that we did not cut down the expenditure on the fighting men necessary for the defence of the Empire. What we really complain of is the increase of expenditure on the body of subsidiary Services which have very little relation to the fighting men proper at all. We have got a smaller force by 20,000 than we had before the War and yet we find that there are 845 military accountants where before the War there were none. Then we have got 175 chaplains as against 115 before the War, an increase of 50 per cent., though there are 20,000 fewer men. We have got a provost staff of 245 as against 173 before the War. For Army education we have 435 as against 286, and for miscellaneous establishments 3,745 against 967. I do not understand why in what you may call these entirely subordinate services you should have such an enormous increase in personnel and expenditure as compared with before the War, seeing that you now have 20,000 fewer men. If you look at the cavalry figures you will find that before the War you had 14,500 and that now you have a little over 7,000. That is to say, you have half what you had before the War; but in spite of that fact the veterinary establishment has gone up from 348 to 392. Why on earth should you now have a larger veterinary establishment than you had before the War? I have here a couple of pages of instances in which the personnel and the expenditure have increased with these entirely subsidiary services, although we have a smaller Army than we had before the War. This matter calls for investigation.
No one complains about spending money on necessary fighting units, but we have every right to complain of what seems to be grossly extravagant expenditure on services that are not required at all.

Mr. MILLS: The last speaker has brought forward certain matters as to which the House will agree with his demand for information. Probably the Secretary of State for War will have an answer regarding the sky pilots that was not available before the War, because he can point to the Air Force, which was net in existence before the War. I wish to refer to a more parochial question—the policy of the Government regarding Woolwich Arsenal. Before the War it was the custom of the Government to allocate a certain percentage of orders annually to Woolwich, and, as usual, a far greater proportion to the various armament firms. Seeing the possibility of the sword being turned into ploughshares some of the workshops of the armaments trust were turned into shops for the making of locomotives and sewing machines, in anticipation of an Eastern European trade which so far has not developed. The people of Woolwich Arsenal, the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce, and the Woolwich Employment Committee successfully appealed to the Prime Minister in the days following the Armistice. Speaking of the future of the Arsenal, the Prime Minister then said that, having regard to the service that had been rendered by the workpeople at Woolwich during the War, he could do no other than promise that in future all war work that might be required would be given to this national factory. I do not come here to plead for extra orders to be given for men who might be employed. I do merely suggest that if you have a huge area such as Woolwich is, with a vast mass of population entirely dependent on the Government for its employment, its local business men willing and anxious to develop the land which the Government, apparently, will not use or will not make up its mind about, then the local Chamber of Commerce and the people dependent on the Government for employment have a right to know what is the Government's policy.
Mention has been made of the Geddes Committee, and that is apparently to be the peg upon which the excuse to reduce Woolwich still further is to be hung. I
only want to say in connection with that that the same people who speak about a so-called loss on commercial work are the very Committee whose Chairman, when Minister of Transport, successfully pleaded to this House and outside that the cost of production of a railway wagon inside Woolwich was £100 less than the quotation of the wagon trust in the Midlands. I suggest that if when he was Minister of Transport one article of production was costing less than the cost of production outside, there must be some very greatly altered circumstances which converts the other items of production into a loss. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War, if, in the future, he will not condescend to give the business people of Woolwich some consideration in the matter of the future of the town, will he at least take into consideration that since the Armistice postal carts, railway wagons, locomotives, milk churns, and many other things have been manufactured at Woolwich, and that if chemical research, gun research, the Ordnance Committee, and the one-hundred-and-one essentials to the carrying on of the nucleus of war in times of peace were brought forward as a so-called war measure, then I venture to say the cost of production in Woolwich would not be so heavy as to make it appear necessary to distribute the work all over the land. At the present moment works for the Army and Navy on a peace basis take £9,000,000, and if they are to be allocated to firms up and down the country and at the same time you will not use your workshops or part with the land, then we in Woolwich have a grievance against the Government.
After all, you claim the whole of the foreshore for a matter of seven miles. The community depends solely on the Government for its means of livelihood, and the business people depend on the workpeople in that way. If it is not the intention of the Government to utilise that land that stretches right down to the division I represent, it is high time that the Government made up its mind what it is going to do and that it stated in no uncertain terms what is its policy. The Secretary of State for War will be interested to know that this so-called deficit of £900,000 in the matter of locomotives is a deficit actually entered upon and can be explained by the amount that it costs to dismantle shop after shop that
had been in existence for generations for gun-making, breaking up machinery, then laying down pits for the construction of locomotives, and putting into the various workshops all the necessary impedimenta for the production of locomotives. I venture to say that the cost of the transition of these shops from ordinary gun-producing shops to the putting in of machinery and the alteration to the work of peace-time would more than absorb the £900,000 which is spoken of as a deficit on the manufacture of locomotives. At the time the order for locomotives was placed the Prime? Minister, speaking, I presume, on behalf of the Government, stated that during the years of War they had visualised their duty to agriculture and because of their duty to agriculture they proposed to alter the gun shops of Woolwich for the production of railway material—their duty to agriculture having imposed on them the necessity of building locomotives and railway material, heavy and light, to link up the countryside with the various great cities.
We know that policy has been abandoned and the Government might at least take into account this presumed promise of the Prime Minister and not attempt to ride off on the pretence that the scheme is being cancelled because of the utter worthlessness of the men employed in Woolwich. Men are there who have spent a lifetime in the production of munitions. Whether that is good for the nation or bad, I submit, if you are going to get rid of men who have spent 30 and 40 and in some cases 45 years in the service of the State, the manly thing to do is to say to these people, "There is no future for you. We thank you for your services, but we have no alternative but to give you notice of discharge." The Committee has been bringing in young men of no pre-War experience or even War experience of the working of the ordnance factories, and paying them salaries five

times in excess of the ordinary post-War salaries, in order that they may insult men who have given a lifetime to the State. These men are having the miser able amount which they get as bonus for services rendered, reduced week after week, and are being insulted, instead of getting an honest, straightforward notice of discharge.

This matter of Woolwich should be taken up by every Service Member, because anyone who refers to the War period will find that alone of our workshops producing munitions during the War, Woolwich was the only one, from August, 1914, to 11th November, 1918, which put out its contracts ahead of time and not five, seven, or 11 months after the stipulated time. There is the nucleus there, but only the nucleus, but they are at less than pre-War strength now, and the idea is still further to reduce the staff by 2,000, while the rates due to unemployment arising out of the policy of the Government are 29s. 8d. in the £. A constituency which was dependent on the Government for so many years has a right to be treated with a little more consideration. If the Government have no future for Woolwich, let them part with the land and allow people who are willing to develop the land to have access to it and give employment to those who must have work of some kind. I hope the Secretary of State for War will do his best to meet that case.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall) rose to put the Question—

Mr. MILLS: I made way for the Secretary of State for War, and I hoped a reply would be made.

Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 56.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Astor, Viscountess
Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Carr, W. Theodore


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Brown, Major D. C.
Coote, William (Tyrone, South)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bruton, Sir James
Cory, Sir I. H. (Cardiff, South)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Johnstone, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pratt, John William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kollaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Purchase, H. G.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Kidd, James
Rae, H. Norman


Ednam, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, G. T.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butler
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Evans, Ernest
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Renwick, Sir George


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lort-Williams, J.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fildes, Henry
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Forestler-Walker, L.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Forrest, Walter
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham
Mailalleu, Frederick William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sugden, W. H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Manville, Edward
Sutherland, Sir William


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Taylor, J.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Grelg, Colonel Sir James William
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Waddington, R.


Hallwood, Augustine
Morris, Richard
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, Hugh
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Munro, Rt. Hon, Robert
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hancock, John George
Murchison, C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Major Joseph
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Haslam, Lewis
Neal, Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor, Viscount


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Winterton, Earl


Hinds, John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wise, Frederick


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Parker, James
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)



Hurd, Percy A.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Inskip, Thomas Nalker H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Jameson, John Gordon
Perring, William George
Dudley Ward.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Halls, Walter
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Sutton, John Edward


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O (Anglesey)


Bramsdon. Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham. Mansfield)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Tillett, Benjamin


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Myers, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson. James (Dudley)


Finney, Samuel
Rendall, Athelstan
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Rose, Frank H.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Royco, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Major Entwistle and Mr. Mills.


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Sitch, Charles H.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,000,000, be granted for the said Service."

The committee division: Ayes, 58; Noes, 162.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Ammon, Charles George
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cairns, John
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Finney, Samuel


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Gillis, William
Myers, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rendall, Athelstan
Tillett, Benjamin


Halls, Walter
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hancock, John George
Rose, Frank H.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawson, John James
Sutton, John Edward
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Swan, J. E.
Mr. James Wilson.


Mills, John Edmund
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hailwood, Augustine
Parker, James


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Astor, Viscountess
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Haslam, Lewis
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hinds, John
Pratt, John William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rae, H. Norman


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Ramsden, G. T.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hurd, Percy A.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bcwyer, Captain G. W. E.
Jameson, John Gordon
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Renwick, Sir George


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Samuel (Herelord, Hereford)


Bruton, Sir James
Jones. J. T. (Carmarthen. Llanelly)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kidd, James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Carr, W. Theodore
Lloyd, George Butler
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Ht. J. A. (Birm. W)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lort-Williams, J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith).
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Sugden, W. H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Sutherland, Sir William


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Taylor, J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawson, Sir Philin
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Edge, Captain Sir William
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Waddington, R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Evans, Ernest
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Manville, Edward
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Falcon, Captain Michael
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fildes, Henry
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Willoughby. Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morris, Richard
Windsor, Viscount


Forrest, Walter
Morrison, Hugh
Winterton, Earl


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nail, Major Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson



Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grelg, Colonel Sir James William
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Dudley Ward.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.




Original Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES (RULES).

Major BARNETT: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Rules of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, laid before Parliament on the 6th day of March, 1922, in pursuance of Section 3 (4) of the Nurses' Registration Act, 1919, and numbered 9a and 43 (2) respectively, may be annulled.
This arises under the Nurses Registration Act passed at the end of 1919. I want to economise the time of the House as much as possible and I am going to take a preliminary point of law which, I think, the Minister of 'Health will admit is fatal to the two Rules to which we are objecting this evening. If the right hon. Gentleman makes that concession, it will not be necessary for me and my friends to discuss the merits of the Rules. The Act of 1919 first set up the General Nursing Council, and the second Clause provided for the registration of the nurses. The third Clause provided that the Council should make Rules for various purposes, including Rules for regulating the conditions of admission to the register. When these Rules are made by the General Nursing Council they are submitted to the Minister of Health, and if they receive his approval they at once, subject to a memorial presented to His Majesty within 21 days after the Rules are laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, have the force of law. No one will deny that it is the province of the General Nursing Council to make Rules with regard to the admission of nurses to the register. The first Rule to which I am taking exception is Rule 9a, which says:
Notwithstanding anything in these Rules the Council may accept in place of a certificate a copy of a certificate certified by a Justice of the Peace, a barrister or a solicitor to be a true copy thereof, or where the applicant is a member of any organised body of nurses recognised for this purpose by the Council, a declaration signed by the Secretary or other responsible officer of that body that on the admission of the applicant to membership a certificate or a certified copy thereof was produced and was verified by that body.
I am not going to deal with the merits of that, but I am going to draw the attention of the House to a subsequent Section of the Nurses Registra-
tion Act, Section 6 (3), which provides that,
In the event of provision being hereafter made for the establishment of a register of nurses in Scotland or Ireland,
there shall be reciprocity, as it is very desirable that nurses registered in one country shall be able to join the register in another country. The Sub-section goes on, therefore:
The Council shall make rules under this Act enabling persons registered as nurses in Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be, to obtain admission to the register of nurses established under this Act—
Now I ask particular attention to these words—
and with a view to securing a uniform standard of qualification in all parts of the United Kingdom the Council shall, before making any rules under this Act with respect to the conditions of admission to the register, consult with any Nursing Councils which may be established by Parliament for Scotland and Ireland respectively.
That has not been done. These Rules, which now lie on the Table of this House, were not submitted by my right hon. Friend to the General Nursing Council for Scotland, or to the General Nursing Council for Ireland, and that fact, by a fortunate use of the procedure of this House, I was able to elicit from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland yesterday. I asked him the following question:
Whether he is aware that the new Rule (9a) passed by the General Nursing Council; for England and Wales, approved by the Minister of Health and now laid upon the Table of the House, permits the names of nurses to be placed on the State Register of Nurses without direct documentary evidence of their credentials and character, as provided for under the existing rule; whether, as is required by the Nurses Registration Act for England and Wales, Section 6 (3), the General Nursing Council for Scotland has been consulted as to this rule; whether it approves of the compilation of the State Register of Nurses upon indirect information supplied by the secretaries of organised bodies of nurses instead of upon documentary evidence supplied direct to the Council; and whether the General Nursing Council for Scotland will be prepared to admit to its register, under the reciprocity agreement between the two countries, nurses who have obtained admission to the register for England and Wales without furnishing such evidence?
This was his answer:
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I understand that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not been consulted in regard
to the proposed rule, and does not approve of it. In answer to the fourth part of the question, my information is that, pending the adjustment of this matter, the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not passed any rule providing for the registration on the Council's register of nurses already on the register of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales.
I then asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has asked for this rule to be withdrawn?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1922; col. 226, Vol. 152.]
and the Secretary for Scotland replied that representations in that sense had reached him. As a matter of fact, the General Nursing Council for Scotland has asked that this rule might be withdrawn.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): When?

Major BARNETT: They asked the General Nursing Council of England in a letter which they wrote to them on the 4th March, and of which I have seen a copy. I am naturally anxious to save the time of the House, and am not arguing the merits of these rules, though I am prepared to do so; but I should like at this stage, if I may, to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that they are plainly ultra vires, and would be so held by any court in the country, he proposes to persist in them? I would ask him to answer that before I sit down.

Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. If I deal with that point, shall I be able to deal with the full case later?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better move his Motion, so that it may be before the House.

Major BARNETT: I was endeavouring to elicit from my right hon. Friend a reply on the point of law, because a discussion of the merits will obviously take a considerable time. I beg to move.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir A. MOND: I will deal with the legal point first. This is, of course, the greatest mare's nest that has ever been produced in this House. It is not likely that I should sanction rules unless I had legal advice as to the competence of the action I was taking and the
powers which I had under the Act in question. My legal adviser, in a written opinion, states:
There is no doubt at all on this point. Section 6 (3) of the Act requires the General Nursing Council, with a view to securing a uniform standard of qualification in all parts of the United Kingdom, to consult with the Scottish and Irish Nursing Councils before making any Rules under the Act with respect to conditions of admission. It is abundantly plain that the conditions of admission to the register have reference to the qualifications of nurses which the Council may prescribe. They cannot refer to the procedure or machinery by which the names of nurses who possess the necessary qualifications actually become inscribed upon the register.
Rule 9a has nothing whatever to do with the qualification of nurses. It is purely a machinery rule, which does no more than prescribe the evidence which nurses are to adduce of their qualifications. The new rule neither raises nor lowers the standard of qualifications, which are prescribed by other rules, and remain precisely the same as before the new rule was made. The legal point is absolutely clear, and even if it was challenged I would point out that Parliament never passed an Act of such an absurd nature as to put the English Nursing Council, and the Minister responsible for it, in the position of being incapable of carrying out the Act in England except by the consent of the Scotch Nursing Council. I have consulted the Scotch Nursing Council on several occasions, and if the necessity arises I am quite ready to consult them again, but it is a different thing to say you ought to consult someone, and to say the rule is ultra vires because you have not consulted them. The law is clear on that point. The provision regarding consultation is directory, and if it is not done it does not legally invalidate the rule. So much for the legal argument. Now I ought to pass to the merits of the case.

Major BARNETT: On a point of Order. I asked the right hon. Baronet to give an answer before I concluded my remarks on the legal point to save the time of the House, and I ought to be allowed to deal with the merits.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his speech by moving. He cannot speak a second time.

Major BARNETT: I specially asked the right hon. Baronet to answer while I was speaking.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet could not speak until there was some question before the House. It was necessary, therefore, to have the Motion moved and seconded, before the Minister could speak.

Sir A. MOND: I thought that would be the position. I feel I must deal with the whole facts fully. This is really a very old standing squabble, which really ought not to trouble the House. Anyone, who knows the history of the story, knows what a long feud there was between two different nursing associations, one championed by the hon. Member who is asking the House to reject the rules, the other by another body of people. So long did the feud go on, that no rules came into existence at all. My predecessor in office got a Bill passed, a council has been set up, and I have been doing my best to get it to work. On the council, unfortunately, the old feud has been pursued by a very small minority, which is now trying to destroy the rules which I have sanctioned, because they are the only way in which nurses in this country, numbering some 50,000, will ever get on the register in their lifetime. What is the position in which I have been placed? A crisis in the Nursing Council, resignation of the chairman, resignation of 16 out of 21 members of the committee. I have now an able chairman and I have got the bulk of the committee to go back on the understanding that I would support them. They have introduced a rule. The purpose is two-fold. One is that, instead of a nurse having to send her original nursing certificate to London to be certified, she can get a certified copy and send it up under proper conditions and have it entered. That is done because we have found from experience that nurses have the greatest objection to part with their original papers. They are afraid they may get lost or mislaid. They are the one vital document in their possession, and they would sooner not be registered at all. The second point is that there are two big organisations which have been in existence for many years before this Act came into force, the College of Nurses and the Royal British Nursing Association. Out of 50,000 nurses, over 19,000 are registered in the College of Nurses register. Their qualification is more severe than required by the rules. They require three years' training instead of
one. What are we doing under these rules? We are enabling the registrar of the Nursing Council to go and examine copies of the certificates of the Royal College of Nurses, who have the roll, whenever an application is made, to satisfy herself. The same will be done with the other nursing associations. There is no favour shown to anybody.
I will tell the House why I have been anxious to take this action, and why it is essential to speak this evening. In the four months since the date when the Register came into existence in November, 3,235 actual cases were received and only 984 were completed. Applications were coming in at the rate of 800 a month, and less than one-third had been finally passed by the Council. The present Council must, according to the Act, come to an end not later than the 23rd December next. Out of 50,000 nurses you have only 1,500 on the Register, and unless between now and the 23rd December next you get a large number of qualified nurses on the Register, you will be in the absurd position of having the Council for the next three years elected by quite a small number of the 50,000 nurses. Therefore it is important and necessary to have a speeding up of the machinery which will put nurses on the Register as rapidly as possible. That will do away with the meticulous and ridiculous manner in which this matter has been treated up to now. It is impossible for the Chairman of the Registration Committee to go into long details of every one of these certificates, and to start a cross-examination in every case. If she did so many of the nurses would be dead and buried before they got on the register. These are the reasons why I have sanctioned this procedure. It is machinery. The Nursing Council, which ought to understand its business, has passed it by a majority of 16 to 6. The Matrons' Association of Great Britain, representing the matrons of the leading London and provincial hospitals, are entirely in favour of the Rules, and I can only say that if the Rules were rejected there would be no other course left open for me than to move the repeal of the Act, do away with the register altogether, and the whole thing would become a farce.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I speak for neither of the two associations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but for the nurses who are members of a trade
union, and who are entirely opposed to the action taken by the Nursing Council. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the constitution of that council. What we said when the Bill was in Committee upstairs has come to pass. We said that it would be an unworkable council. Twenty-one of the people on the Council belong to the employing side, leaving five or six for the rest of the nursing profession. Those people for whom the Act was passed, the nurses who were to be protected by the Act, are loft with only four representatives to see that their rights are protected.

Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the employing side?

Mr. RICHARDSON: The medical profession and the matrons.

Sir A. MOND: Matrons are nurses as much as anybody else.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I claim to have had as much experience of municipal hospital work as most people, and I know the iron hand of the matron. I know that often if a nurse claims to have a soul of her own she has to leave practically the next day. She is thrown on the street without a penny. I put my experience against the advice offered to the Minister of Health. The continuation of this Council is entirely wrong. We had a strike in the district. Because these people did not get all they were insisting on being done they went on strike. I have had something to do with strikes and lock-outs, but this is the very first strike I have ever known in which the strikers drew their pay while they were on strike, and they helped themselves to £500 during the ten weeks. These are the people who are in power on the Nurses Council. There were no salaries deducted. These things are happening, and the nurses are claiming that they have some right to say that the money which they are subscribing should be distributed for the work which they are doing in an efficient manner.

Sir A. MOND: No members of the Council get any payment whatsoever.

Mr. RICHARDSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that what I am saying is correct,
that they were paid in salaries to the staff without the Council being working.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member said that the Council drew pay while on strike. That is not correct.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I submit that that does not alter the position one bit if there is no work to be done, and the Act has been annulled by their action and cannot be worked for the staff inside that hospital. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that immediately they came back they set about driving the others off every committee and leaving them with no power whatever. They drove off one committee a woman who has had more experience than any other woman on that Council and put on another woman who would act according to their dictates, thus taking away the only friend on that committee which the working nurses had. Again they drove off a committee a matron who was the only matron who knew anything of the training and another lady was put in her place, and so they have gone on. Some protection ought to be given to these people. Their livelihood depends on it. This Act was passed for the sake of safeguarding the nurses and the general public. What will happen if this thing is allowed to continue is that anybody who can gain the confidence of the matron may have her name added to the list of nurses without any training at all. I know that this may not happen, but it is possible, and young women who have given three years of their lives to training ought to have some protection. Therefore we are claiming that this thing is not on right lines, and that if justice is to be done both sides ought to have sufficient members on the Council. They might prevent a strike if working nurses had a sufficient number on the Council to form a quorum, for there would then be no use in these people refusing to come and act and to get these nurses on the register which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be compiled with which I am in entire agreement. I would as soon as possible have every nurse in this country who is thoroughly trained placed on the list, for the sake of the suffering public. I beg the Minister of Health to take up the matter, and to see whether something cannot be done to bring about peace and harmony in the profession. We want these people to have
a real say in the working out of their own salvation. Surely the time has passed when women should have to work 12 hours a day for £30 a year. It is a shame. The very best women we have in the country should be able to take up the nursing profession. It is in some ways of vastly more importance than the medical profession, for the nurse is continually with the patient, and must know what is best to be done at any moment to save human life.

Mr. LYLE: I have never heard so many misstatements made in five minutes as have been made by the last speaker. He spoke Very sincerely, and no doubt what he said he meant, but, as very often happens, in this case various statements have been made from the Labour benches without the knowledge whatever of the subject. [Interruption.] The statement has been made that the object of the General Nursing Council is to do some damage to nurses. My hon. Friend has waxed eloquent about the nurses managing their own affairs, but he has missed the whole point. This Council is only a temporary Council, nominated to carry on until sufficient nurses have registered.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. Member say that the whole of the registration is to be done before the nurses get a register at all?

Mr. LYLE: The nurses are not registering as had been expected. The object of these Rules, passed by a large majority of the temporary council and approved by the Minister of Health, is to enable nurses to register, and when sufficient nurses have registered they can manage their own affairs. It is precisely with that object that the Rules are placed on the Table. Just now nurses are not registering because there is so much difficulty in sending up their certificates. Under the present scheme the certificate of a nurse has to be verified and to be sent to the Registrar. There is no question of a nurse getting through without proper qualifications. The scheme is designed merely to enable a nurse more easily to have her certificates sent and approved.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) was accused by the Minister of Health of having started a mare's nest,
but I think he went on a point of law, and was consequently unable to make his case from the point of view of the facts. I think, however, he did get mixed up with the question of law and the question of ladies, and when one gets mixed up with those two questions it becomes rather awkward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that a joke?".] Members of the Labour party do not often see a joke, but they can take that as one if they like. I do not want the House to have a wrong impression as to the merits of this case, nor to think that this is merely a question of a statement on the one side by my hon. and gallant Friend as representing the nurses of the whole of this country and the Minister of Health and other unscrupulous people who are trying to get the better of the nurses. I do not want them to think that, because there are other bodies, infinitely greater numbers of nurses than any of the societies that have been petitioning hon. Members and have so successfully taken in some—not all—of my friends on the Labour benches. It is by no means the unanimous wish of the nurses that these Rules now lying on the Table should not come in as part of the law of the Registration Act. That is a statement that can be proved. As the Minister of Health has stated, there are other bodies quite prepared to show the nurses on their registers and their qualifications. The Association of Hospital Matrons has passed a resolution at their quarterly meeting at which they
express their entire approval of the recent steps taken by the General Nursing Council in amending the existing Rules for the purpose of speeding up the compilation of the State Register.
They further desire to thank the Minister of Health for having signed these Rules, and also to express their confidence in those members of the General Nursing Council who have supported these measures.
I do resent very much on behalf of matrons I have worked with and on behalf of the great body of nurses in the country the statement that matrons as a whole and as a class are people who are driving nurses for all they are worth, and are simply representing the so-called employers. The Labour party try to make a great point of the use of the word "employer" as something to be laughed at and sneered at, but I venture to remind them that after all there is no such thing as "employers" in the sense that they are using the term. The hospitals
are run for the benefit of the poor of this country without any hope of reward, and it is mean and cowardly, and is not in the interests of this House, that such statements should be made against matrons, who are a splendid and noble body of women who on the whole are beloved by their nurses. I only rise to show the absurdity of that. My hon. and gallant Friend wants the nurses to run their own profession, and the only way to do that is to get on the Register as soon as possible. They are not getting on it. There are only 1,500 on the Register, and the object of these Rules is to enable them to get on the Register without all the formalities they have to go through now. As I have said, I do not want people to think it is nurses on one side and the Minister of Health on the other. I am convinced that the majority of the nurses of the country want things speeded up and that they want these facilities, and it would be a great mistake if the House thought it was a case of the nurses on the one side and the wicked Minister of Health on the other opposing the poor nurses of the country. It is not so at all.

Captain ELLIOT: We are indebted to the last speaker for having reduced the heat which unfortunately was imparted to this Debate. In some respects, I have not so much right to speak, because this is a question of the registration of English nurses, but I intervene on behalf of Scottish nurses, since they also are vitally concerned in the question. The question of law raised at the beginning of the Debate seems to have received very perfunctory attention from the Minister of Health. The Minister is a man of strong personality who has, so far, received very little opposition in any of the vigorous steps which he has taken in remodelling the health services of the country, and he is, perhaps, a little inclined to brush aside opinions which do not exactly coincide with his own. It seems to me, even if we take it on the simplest point of all, that he is availing himself of a legal technicality to escape from the dilemna, in which—it seems to me as an ordinary layman—he is placed by the words of the Act. The words are mandatory—
The Council shall, before making any rules under this Act with respect to the conditions of admission to the register, con-
sult with any Nursing Councils which may be established by Parliament for Scotland and Ireland respectively.
That is with a view to a subsequent establishment of reciprocity. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the supplying of evidence is not part of the conditions of admission to the register, but it is considered by the General Nursing Council of Scotland as being so germane to the subject under discussion that they say they cannot allow for reciprocity as long as Rule 9a is permitted to stand on the English register. Where lawyers differ, it is not for mere laymen to intrude, but it is impossible to suppose that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not the interests of the nurses at heart. When it says it cannot give reciprocity on the conditions and the rules approved by the Ministry of Health, I submit to the Minister that even though he may be in order, on the technical legal question involved, he is not so on the broader question as to what was intended by Parliament when it passed the Act. We debated the question at some length, as I well remember, and the general intention was that in order to provide reciprocity between the Councils in England and Scotland respectively, these Councils should consult each other and make sure that admission to the one register would, ipso facto, mean admission, with a few technical changes, to the other register.
12 M.
Even if the Minister be correct on the narrow legal point, that the provision of evidence of qualification is not a condition of admission to the register—regarding which, not having legal training I am not qualified to speak—I claim that the broad object of this Section of the Act is not being fulfilled by the rules at present laid on the Table of the House, because the prime governing consideration, namely that the two registers should be similar and parallel in all respects, is not being fulfilled. Therefore I do beg of the Minister to reconsider the matter, not from the merely legal point of view of those who are, no doubt, eminently qualified to speak, and have given a perfectly correct legal ruling, but to take the broader view of what was intended by this House when it placed the Act on the Statute Book, namely, that the Scottish and the English Councils should consult with each other before passing rules about the admission of
nurses, so that this unfortunate contretemps which has occurred might be avoided. The very purpose of the Act is being defeated by this ruling, and I do beg of the Minister, even although he has a strong legal position, to reconsider the matter on the broader ground. I do claim that the Scottish nurses are very closely concerned in this matter. The protest has come, not from any party or one section of nurses or another section of nurses, but from the body legally set up under an Act passed by this House. Can a protest of that nature be brushed aside in the perfunctory manner in which the Minister of Health has attempted to dismiss it? I protest against a reasoned letter from the Registrar of the Scottish Council being dismissed as a mare's nest.

Sir A. MOND: I have received no communication whatsoever from the Scottish Nursing Council.

Captain ELLIOT: It may be so. I do think that goes to prove the fact that this consultation, which was desired by the House, when it passed this parallel Act, has not been carried out. The fact that there is such a protest is not in dispute. Everybody admits it. Many other Scottish Members have received protests. The very lack of co-ordination which this Section in the Act is intended to prevent—

Sir A. MOND: It is the fault of the Scottish Council.

Captain ELLIOT: I do claim that, in passing a new rule, the onus of proof lies on the man who wishes to change the law. I am not claiming any position of superiority for the Scottish Council, for if the position had been reversed, and the Scottish Council had passed a new rule, or laid on the Table of this House a new rule without previous consultation, then I think all of us Scottish Members would have admitted that in that action it had committed a fault. I forget what exact official position the Minister holds on the Nursing Council, or in relation to that Council, but he holds an official position in virtue of his office, and the Registrar of the Scottish Council has surely acted very rightly in indicating the decision of his Council to the corresponding body in England. At any rate, that that dispute has arisen and that that protest has been
communicated to the English Council are not in dispute, and we do beg the Minister, at any rate, to meet us in this matter, or else, with the greatest reluctance in the world, we may be forced to divide the House on this very important matter, because it brings up the question of principle. I am sorry to detain the House, but it is a matter of great importance both to the medical profession and the nursing profession, and I have spent many years of my life in that service, and have its interests very keenly at heart. We have here this problem again of this nationalistic business of setting up two boards, one in England and one in Scotland. It leads in this case, as it will lead in every other case, to confusion, and I beg of Scottish Members, particularly the Member for West Fife, to observe this point, that when we get a dispute such as this the economic power drags us by the heels. Scotland in such a cast: can take what action it will and the English Minister can come down here, and bring the weight of England to bear. I protested against these split-up and subordinate bodies when the rule was going through the House, and I do point out to the hon. Member, who is so keen to get everything cut up and subordinated, and drawn into Edinburgh instead of London, that whenever we do get these things carried through we have trouble in this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Surely that is in the Act, is it not? The discussion now is only as to these particular regulations made under the Act.

Captain ELLIOT: I am merely saying that the attempt at co-ordination in this Act to remedy these evils is not satisfactorily working on this occasion, but I bow to your ruling. I do not wish to argue the merits of the case, except to say that for any State body to accept entrants at second hand, unless laid down by Act of Parliament, is surely a rather unusual innovation in the compiling of the State registers, and that any register which takes such entrants is weakening its position in the eyes of the nursing profession and of the public. Therefore, I do beg of the Minister to reconsider the position which he has announced to the House.

Mr. SPENCER: I want to lodge a protest against the absence from this House
of a legal representative of the Government when we are dealing with an important question in which a legal issue is raised. I distinctly remember that, when we were dealing with this question upstairs, a very great deal of apprehension was expressed with regard to the Councils we are discussing to night, and I am thoroughly convinced that, so far as the legal aspect of the question is concerned, the legal opinion which has been expressed by the Minister who is defending his action to-night, is an opinion that, to put it most mildly and moderately, can be questioned by this House. I had some previous experience with regard to opinion which has been given by the legal representative of His Majesty's Government when questions have been either before this House or Committee.
May I give one instance to show how great is the difference between the legal opinion just laid down by the Minister and the actual practice; and, after all, the Minister gave his legal decision, and then said it could not be enforced! When we were discussing upstairs the words "may" and "shall," the Minister said that "may" in law had the same meaning as "shall." This referred to the Poor Law officials and their pensions. When it comes to the interpretation of "may" as "shall"—the matter being brought before this House—the Minister in charge to-night has more than once stated that he has no power of enforcement. When to-night we come to deal with another aspect of the law, we are informed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]. It will not hasten the proceedings one iota by hon. Members shouting "Divide." Those who shout, had we been discussing Ireland, would have been ready to sit up all night. I want to make this point, so far as the word "shall" is concerned. I understand the position of the Minister is this: that this word "shall" is purely an instruction—that is the intention of the word, an instruction that the English Council "shall" consult, and if they do not consult, when the Minister has done so and so, it does not invalidate anything that has been done by the Council. However he can place such an interpretation upon the law passes the comprehension of the English lay mind.
I want to say just a word or two in regard to the position of nurses in this country and in Scotland. Nothing should be done in this House which will make it more difficult to interchange, or accept and recognise the validity of registration and the certificate on the other side of the border, or to encourage a system under which the nurses of this country may be registered, then perhaps go over into Scotland and find that their English registration is not accepted as valid. If we refuse to accept the humble petition we are setting up a state of affairs in which we are going to have, not only a dual authority, but a dual form of registration, in which on one side of the border it will, and on the other side it will not, be recognised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Any system of that character, in my opinion, will be most detrimental to the nurses of the country.

Major BARNETT: By leave of the House I should like to make one point in reply to the right hon. Baronet. He says that Rule 9 A deals, not with qualification, but with the conditions of admission to the register. I agree: but according to Section 6 (3) of the Act, the General Nursing Council for England and Wales must consult with the Scottish and Irish Councils before making rules "with respect to the conditions of admission to the register." My right hon. Friend says that 9 A is "merely a machinery rule." Surely the question of what evidence of nurses' qualifications shall be required is vital! There have been cases of nurses in this country with forged certificates who have carried on practice. If the Scottish Council insists upon seeing certain certificates, or certified copies of them, is not that a material point of admission to the register? The Scottish Council declines to accept hearsay evidence and insists upon the production of the original training certificate, or at least a certified copy of such certificate? A majority of the English Council now, apparently, take a different view, and are satisfied with a declaration that the training certificate, or a certified copy of it, was produced at some earlier date to other people. How can there be reciprocity under such conditions? A nurse who failed to register in Scotland under the prudent rules imposed by the Scottish Council might come to England, register under the looser provisions of the English
Council, and then claim to register in Scotland under the reciprocity rule. I say the right hon. Gentleman's law is bad law, and that Rule 9 A is ultra vires. If my right hon. Friend does not see his way

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr.

to drop these rules I propose to take the opinion of the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 64.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Halls, Walter
Sitch, Charles H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Spencer, George A.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Sutton, John Edward


Bcwyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Swan, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John James
Tillett, Benjamin


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gillis, William
Rose, Frank H.
Major Barnett and Mr. James


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wilson.


Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, James


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnston, Major Harry
Hinds, John
Perring, William George


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Jameson, John Gordon
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Brown, Major D. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Seddon, J. A.


Bruton, Sir James
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sugden, W. H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Evans, Ernest
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Fildes, Henry
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Manville, Edward
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Windsor, Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nail, Major Joseph



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson nad Mr.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Dudley Ward.


Hallwood, Augustine
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.